I 


» 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 
SAN  DIEGO 


~\ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticsversusshaOOsmitiala 


THE      CRITICS 

Versus 

SHAKSPERE 

A    BRIEF    FOR     THE    DEFENDANT 


By 
FRANCIS  A.  SMITH 


Zbc  Unfcfcerbocfccr  ipress 
"Hew  Ifforft 

1907 


Copyright,  1907 


FRANCIS    A.    SMITH 


THE  CRITICS 

versus 
SHAKSPERE 


A  BRIEF  FOR  DE- 
FENDANT. 

By  Francis  A.  Smith, 
of  Counsel. 


Many  years  ago,  I  was  retained  in  the  great 
case  of  The  Critics  against  Shakspere, 
the  most  celebrated  on  the  calendar  of 
history  during  three  centuries.  Unlike  other 
cases,  it  has  been  repeatedly  decided,  and  as 
often  reopened  and  reheard  before  the  most 
eminent  judges,  who  have  again  and  again 
non-suited  the  plaintiffs.  Appeals  have 
availed  nothing  to  reverse  those  decisions. 
New  actions  have  been  brought  on  the 
ground  of  newly  discovered  evidence;  coun- 
sel have  summed  up  the  testimony  from  all 
lands,  from  whole  libraries  and  literatures, 
and  the  great  jury  of  mankind  have  uni- 
formly rendered  a  verdict  of  no  cause  of 

action. 

i 


2056016 


2  Critics 

Ben  Jonson  said  that  Shakspere  "wanted 
art";  the  highest  appellate  court  decided 
that  "Lear"  was  a  greater  work  than 
Euripides  or  Sophocles  ever  produced.  Vol- 
taire, the  presiding  Justice  in  the  court  of 
French  criticism,  decided  that  Shakspere 
was  "votre  bizarre  sauvage;"  the  world 
has  reversed  his  decision,  and  everywhere, 
except  perhaps  in  France,  the  "Henriade"  is 
neglected  for  "Hamlet." 

During  the  seventeenth  century,  English 
criticism  sought  to  put  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  Massinger,  Otway,  Wycherly,  Con- 
greve,  Cowley,  Dryden,  and  even  the  mad- 
man Lee,  above  Shakspere.  Denham  in 
1667  sings  an  obituary  to  the  memory  of  the 
"  immortal ' '  Cowley, — 

"By  Shakspere's,  Jonson's,  Fletcher's  lines, 
Our  stage's  lustre  Rome's  outshines. 
****** 

Old  Mother  Wit  and  Nature  gave 
Shakspere  and  Fletcher  all  they  have ; 
In  Spencer  and  in  Jonson,  art 
Of  slower  Nature  got  the  start. 


vs.  Shakspere  3 

But  both  in  him  so  equal  are, 

None  knows  which  bears  the  happiest  share." 

One  knows  not  which  to  admire  most,  the 
beauty  of  the  poetry  or  the  justice  of  the 
encomium. 

James  Shirly,  whom  Shakspere  has  not  yet 
been  accused  of  imitating,  said  in  1640  that 
he  had  few  friends,  and  Tateham,  an  obscure 
versifier,  in  1652,  that  he  was  the  "plebeian 
driller." 

Philipps,  the  pupil  of  Milton,  refers  to 
Shakspere's  "unfiled  expressions,  his  ram- 
bling and  undigested  fancies,  the  laughter 
of  the  critical."  Dry  den  "regretted  that 
Shakspere  did  not  know  or  rarely  observed 
the  Aristotelian  laws  of  the  three  unities," 
but  was  good  enough  to  express  his  surprise 
at  the  powerful  effect  of  his  plays.  "  He  is 
many  times  flat,  insipid,  his  comic  wit 
degenerating  into  clenches,  his  serious  swell- 
ing, into  bombast." 

Thomas  Rymer,  another  disciple  of  the 
unities,  in  1693,  declared  "  Othello  "  to  be  a 


4  Critics 

"bloody  farce  without  salt  or  savor,"  and 
says  that  "in  the  neighing  of  a  horse  or  the 
growling  of  a  mastiff  there  is  a  meaning, 
there  is  a  lively  expression,  and  .  .  .  more 
humanity,  than  many  times  in  the  tragical 
flights  of  Shakspere.  "  How  much  humanity 
may  be  shown  in  the  neighing  of  a  horse  or 
the  growling  of  a  mastiff  may  be  left  to  the 
impartial  judgment  of  the  jockey  or  the 
dog  fancier,  but  the  world  has  got  beyond 
the  criticism  of  Rymer.  In  his  view,  "al- 
most everything  in  Shakspere's  plays  is  so 
wretched  that  he  is  surprised  how  critics 
could  condescend  to  honor  so  wretched  a 
poet  with  critical  discussions.  " 

John  Dennis  and  Charles  Gildon,  whose 
books  are  forgotten  under  the  dust  of  more 
than  two  centuries,  in  1693  and  1694  denied 
that  Shakspere's  plays  had  any  excellence, 
any  wealth  in  profound  sentences  or 
truth  to  nature,  any  originality,  force  or 
beauty  of  diction;  and  placed  him  far 
below  the  ancients  in  all  essential  points, — 
in  composition,  invention,  characterization. 


vs.  Shakspere  5 

Dennis  says  Shakspere  paid  no  heed  to 
poetic  justice.  .  .  "the  good  and  bad  per- 
ishing promiscuously  in  the  best  of  his 
tragedies,  so  that  there  can  be  either  none 
or  very  weak  instruction  in  them."  Gildon 
sums  up  his  opinion  by  the  sententious 
remark  that  "his  beauties  are  buried  be- 
neath a  heap  of  ashes,  isolated  and  frag- 
mentary like  the  ruins  of  a  temple,  so  that 
there  is  no  harmony  in  them. " 

Against  all  this  arraignment  by  the  imi- 
tators of  the  French  drama,  we  have  that 
loving  tribute  of  the  great  Milton : — 

"  Dear  son  of  memory,  great  heir  of  fame, 
What  need'st  thou  such  weak  witness  of  thy 

Name. 
Thou,  in  our  wonder  and  astonishment, 
Hast  built  thyself  a  live-long  monument." 

Pope  could  not  resist  the  charm  of  his 
unacknowledged  master.  But  Pope  praises 
Dry  den,  Denham,  and  Waller, — never  a 
word  of  commendation  for  Shakspere:  "he 
is  not  correct,  not  classic;  he  has  almost  as 
many  defects  as  beauties;  his  dramas  want 


6  Critics 

plan,  are  defective  and  irregular  in  con- 
struction; he  keeps  the  tragic  and  comic  as 
little  apart  as  he  does  the  different  epochs 
and  nations  in  which  the  scenes  of  his  plays 
are  laid;  the  unity  of  action,  of  place,  and  of 
time  is  violated  in  every  scene. " 

The  eighteenth  century  was  notable  for 
its  corrections  and  remodellings,  reducing 
the  grandeur  of  the  originals  to  the  levels  of 
the  critics.  Lord  Lansdowne  degraded  Shy- 
lock  into  the  clown  of  the  play;  it  was  "fur- 
nished with  music  and  other  ornamentation, 
enriched  with  a  musical  masque,  'Peleus  and 
Thetis,'  and  with  a  banqueting  scene  in 
which  the  Jew, "  dining  apart  from  the  rest, 
drinks  to  his  God,  Money.  Gildon  mangled 
"Measure  for  Measure"  and  provided  it 
with  "musical  entertainments. "  The  Duke 
of  Buckingham  divided  "Julius  Caesar"  into 
two  tragedies  with  choruses.  Worsdale  re- 
duced "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew"  to  a 
vaudeville,  and  Lampe  "trimmed  'A  Mid- 
summer Night's  Dream'  into  an  opera." 
Garrick  adapted  "Romeo  and  Juliet"  to  the 


vs.  Shakspere  1 

stage  of  his  time,  by  allowing  Juliet  to  awake 
before  Romeo  had  died  of  the  poison,  "The 
Tempest"  by  furnishing  it  with  songs,  "The 
Taming  of  the  Shrew"  by  cutting  it  down 
to  a  farce  in  three  acts. 

Even  the  great  Samuel  Johnson  said  that 
Shakspere  "sacrifices  virtue  to  convenience, 
and  is  so  much  more  careful  to  please  than 
to  instruct  that  he  seems  to  write  without 
any  moral  purpose. "  .  .  .  "His  plots  are 
often  so  loosely  formed  that  a  very  slight 
consideration  may  improve  them,  and  so 
carelessly  pursued  that  he  seems  not  always 
fully  to  comprehend  his  own  design.  " 

"  It  may  be  observed  that  in  many  of  his 
plays  the  latter  part  is  evidently  neglected. 
When  he  found  himself  near  the  end  of  his 
work,  and  in  view  of  his  reward,  he  short- 
ened the  labor  to  snatch  the  profit.  He 
therefore  remits  his  efforts  where  he  should 
most  vigorously  exert  them,  and  his  catas- 
trophe is  improbably  produced  and  im- 
perfectly represented." 

And  so  it  may  be  said  that  in  England, 


8  Critics 

after  Shakspere's  death,  the  Drama  was 
devoted  to  the  imitators  of  ancient  models, 
under  the  leadership  of  Ben  Jonson,  and 
later,  beyond  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  to  the  imitators  of  French  taste,  for 
the  amusement  of  Charles  the  Second, 
"Defender  of  the  Faith,"  and  the  correct 
Nell  Gwynn.  Under  the  guidance  of  such 
imitators,  from  Davenant  to  Cibber,  many 
of  Shakspere's  plays  were  reconstructed  for 
the  stage,  until  The  Toiler  quotes  lines  from 
Davenant 's  mangled  version  of  "  Macbeth," 
and  N.  Tate,  in  his  edition  of  "  Lear"  "re- 
vived with  alterations,  as  acted  at  the 
Duke's  Theatre,"  refers  to  the  original 
play  as  "an  old  piece  with  which  he  had 
become  acquainted  through  a  friend." 
Davenant  and  Dryden  in  1670  improved 
"The  Tempest";  Davenant  corrected  the 
errors  of  "Measure for  Measure"  and  "Much 
Ado  "  in  1673;  Sedley  cut  out  the  immor- 
ality from  "  Antony  "  in  1677  ;  Shadwell,  in 
the  following  year,  reformed  the  character 
of  "Timon";  Tate  restored  "Lear"  to  his 


vs.  Shakspere  9 

kingdom  and  Cordelia  to  life,  and  even 
made  "Henry  VI.,"  "Richard  II., and  "Corio- 
lanus"  conform  to  the  rules  of  dramatic  art 
which  Shakspere  had  so  defiantly  violated. 
Durfey  corrected  the  imperfect  plot,  char- 
acterization, and  diction  of  "Cymbeline,"and 
administered  just  punishment  to  Iachimo; 
and  finally,  Betterton  and  Cibber,  in  1710, 
added  elegance  to  the  wit  of  Falstaff  and 
refinement  to  the  bloody  cunning  of  Richard. 
"All  these  versions,"  as  Ulrici  says, 
"were  essentially  the  same  in  character; 
as  a  rule,  only  such  passages  as  were  most 
effective  on  the  stage  were  left  unaltered, 
but  in  all  cases  the  editors  endeavored  to 
expunge  the  supposed  harshnesses  of  lan- 
guage and  versification;  powerful  passages 
were  tamed  down  and  diluted,  elegant 
passages  embellished,  tender  passages  made 
more  tender;  the  comic  scenes  were  pro- 
vided with  additional  indelicacies,  and  it 
was  further  endeavored  to  make  the  aim  of 
the  action  more  correct  by  the  removal  of 
some    supposed    excrescences,    or    by    the 


io  Critics 

alteration  of  the  scenic  arrangement  and 
the  course  of  the  action.  " 

Yet,  in  spite  of  all  these  distortions  of 
the  great  originals,  in  conformity  with  the 
taste  of  corrupt  courts,  the  love  and  ad- 
miration of  the  English  people  for  the 
dramas  as  Shakspere  wrote  them  was 
attested  by  more  than  twenty  complete 
and  critical  editions  of  his  works  before 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century ;  and  the 
high  estimate  of  his  genius  during  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  was 
never  questioned  until  1904,  when  Professor 
Barrett  Wendell,  in  his  "Temper  of  the 
Seventeenth  Century  in  English  Literature," 
discovered  and  revealed  to  the  world  that 
Shakspere,  except  as  a  "phrase-maker"  and 
except  as  the  inventor  of  "historical  fiction" 
in  "  Henry  IV."  and  "  Henry  V.,"  was  "the 
most  skilful  and  instinctive  imitator  among 
the  early  Elizabethan  dramatists,"  and  "re- 
mained till  the  end  an  instinctively  imitative 
follower  of  fashions  set  by  others.  " 

It  had  taken  nearly  three   centuries    of 


vs.  Shakspere  n 

time  and  the  researches  of  countless  scholars 
to  make  the  discovery,  and  they  had  all 
failed  except  Professor  Wendell.  During 
Shakspere's  life  and  after  his  death,  none  of 
his  contemporaries  ever  accused  him  of 
imitating  "fashions  set  by  others";  none 
of  them,  except  the  profligate  Greene,  of 
"beautifying  himself  with  others'  feathers." 

Edmund  Malone,  by  what  may  be  called 
digital  criticism,  undertook  to  prove  that 
Shakspere,  in  the  second  and  third  parts  of 
11  Henry  VI.,"  stole  177 1  lines  from  the  "  Con- 
tention, "  originally  written  by  another  hand, 
remodelled  2373  lines,  and  added  1899  of  his 
own;  but  even  Malone  did  not  charge  that 
Shakspere  imitated  the  author  of  the  "Con- 
tention"; his  argument,  if  it  had  not  been 
conclusively  answered  again  and  again,  would 
prove  that  Shakspere  was  "the  most  un- 
blushing plagiarist  that  ever  put  pen  to 
paper." 

But  long  before  Malone  came  Lessing,  who 
in  1759  led  the  successful  attack  upon  the 
pseudo-classicism  of  the  French  dramatists, 


1 2  Critics 

proved  that  the  three  unities  were  but  the 
articles  of  an  outworn  creed,  and  in  1758, 
that  Shakspere  was  something  more  than 
a  successful  playright,  more  than  the  suc- 
cessful rival  of  Marlowe  and  Kyd  and  Dekker 
and  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  more  than 
"the  master  of  the  revels  to  mankind,"  and 
led  critical  opinion  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
was  the  foremost  man  of  his  time  and  of  all 
time,  with  power  to  search  the  secrets  of 
all  hearts,  to  measure  the  abysses  of  all 
passion,  to  portray  the  weakness  of  all 
human  foibles,  to  create  characters  who  act 
and  speak  and  are  as  much  alive  to  us  as 
the  men  and  women  we  daily  meet,  to  teach 
mankind  the  profoundest  philosophy,  the 
littleness  of  the  great,  the  greatness  of 
humility  and  truth,  and  to  inculcate  by 
immortal  examples  the  highest  and  purest 
morality. 

And  so  England  found  at  last  the  great- 
ness of  her  greatest  son  in  the  "father  of 
German  literature,"  and  the  nineteenth 
century  affirmed  the  judgment    of  Lessing. 


vs.  Shakspere  13 

Among  Germans,  it  needs  only  to  name 
Wieland,  Herder,  Goethe,  Schiller,  Ulrici,  and 
Gervinus;  among  Englishmen,  Coleridge, 
who  said,  "No  one  has  ever  yet  produced 
one  scene  conceived  and  expressed  in  the 
Shaksperean  idiom";  and  Charles  Knight, 
who  has  exploded  the  traditions  of  Rowe 
and  Stevens  about  the  deer  stealing,  the  wife 
desertion  and  the  testamentary  insult,  and 
conclusively  shown  that  "the  theory  of 
Shakspere's  first  employment  in  repairing 
the  plays  of  others  is  altogether  untenable, 
supported  only  by  a  very  narrow  view  of 
the  great  essentials  of  a  dramatic  work, 
and  by  verbal  criticism  which,  when  care- 
fully examined,  fails  even  in  its  own  petty 
assumptions. " 

But  English  criticism  is  not  conclusive 
for  us  without  the  indorsement  of  American 
scholars.  Let  me  quote  what  Emerson 
says: — "He  is  the  father  of  German  liter- 
ature. Now,  literature,  philosophy,  and 
thought  are  Shaksperean.  His  mind  is  the 
horizon  beyond  which  we  at  present  do  not 


14  Critics 

see.  Our  ears  are  educated  to  music  by  his 
rhythm.  He  cannot  step  from  his  tripod, 
and  give  us  anecdotes  of  his  inspiration. 
He  is  inconceivably  wise;  the  others  con- 
ceivably. A  good  reader  can,  in  a  sort, 
nestle  into  Plato's  brain  and  think  from 
thence,  but  not  into  Shakspere's. " 

And  Lowell  has  uttered  what  seemed  the 
final  estimate: — "Those  magnificent  crystal- 
lizations of  feeling  and  phrase,  basaltic 
masses,  molten  and  interfused  by  the  primal 
fires  of  passion,  are  not  to  be  reproduced  by 
the  slow  experiments  of  the  laboratory 
striving  to  parody  creation  with  artifice. 
.  .  .  Among  the  most  alien  races  he  is  as 
solidly  at  home  as  a  mountain  seen  from 
many  sides  by  many  lands,  itself  superbly 
solitary,  yet  the  companion  of  all  thoughts 
and  domesticated  in  all  imaginations." 

All  this  weight  of  opinion  has  not  served 
to  settle  the  question  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Shakspere.  It  is  hardly  needful  to  mention 
the  action  brought  by  Ignatius  Donnelly 
to  prove  that  Francis  Bacon  was  the  author 


vs.  Shakspere  15 

of  work  which  excels  the  "Novum  Organum, ' ' 
for  that  action  was  laughed  out  of  court  by- 
judge,  jury,  and  audience.  It  might  as  well 
be  claimed  that  Job  wrote  "Hamlet";  for, 
whatever  doubt  may  be  raised  as  to  his 
personal  history,  the  folio  of  1623  and  the 
testimony  of  his  contemporaries  have  shown 
as  clearly  that  Shakspere  wrote  the  dramas 
bearing  his  name  as  that  Macaulay  wrote  a 
history  of  the  Revolution  of  1688. 

But  here  come  Barrett  Wendell,  Professor 
of  English  Literature  at  Harvard,  and  his 
pupil  and  disciple,  Ashley  H.  Thorndike, 
Assistant  Professor  of  English  at  the  Western 
Reserve  University,  with  a  new  case,  or  a 
new  brief  on  the  old  one,  maintaining,  with 
laborious  industry  and  mutual  sympathy, 
that  Shakspere  was  only  an  Elizabethan 
playwright,  who  found  the  London  stage  in 
possession  of  chronicle  plays,  and  at  once 
seized  the  opportunity  of  using  and  adapting 
their  material  in  the  histories  of  King  John 
and  the  rest ;  that  he  learned  the  organ  music 
of  his  blank  verse  from  Kit  Marlowe;  that 


1 6  Critics 

his  tragedies  are  in  the  manner  of  Kyd  or 
some  other  forgotten  failure;  that  his  com- 
edies are  but  adaptations  from  Greene  or 
Boccaccio;  that  "  Cymbeline  "  is  but  an  imi- 
tation of  "Philaster";  in  short  that,  finding 
some  style  of  drama  made  popular  by  some 
contemporary  of  more  original  power,  he 
immediately  imitated  his  style  and  plot,  sur- 
passed him  in  phrase-making,  and  so  coined 
sterling  money  to  build  and  decorate  his 
house  at  Stratford. 

If  not  the  most  formidable,  this  is  the 
latest  attack  of  the  critics.  It  should  seem 
from  our  brief  review  of  former  efforts,  that 
this  has  been  fully  answered.  But  if  apology 
is  needful  for  further  defence,  let  it  be  found 
in  this,  that  when  men  of  eminent  position 
as  the  instructors  of  youth,  whose  word 
in  these  days  of  careless  and  superficial 
reading  is  likely  to  be  taken  as  final,  under- 
take to  change  the  opinion  of  the  civilized 
world  as  to  the  genius  and  character  of  its 
supreme  mind,  their  assertions  should  be 
supported  by   something  more   substantial 


vs.  Shakspere  17 

than  references  to  each  other  as  authority, 
more  reliable  than  dramatic  chronology, 
which  they  themselves  admit  to  be  uncertain, 
more  tangible  than  the  effort  to  count  the 
lines  of  "  Henry  VIII."  written  by  Fletcher. 

The  position  of  Professor  Wendell  can  be 
most  fairly  stated  in  his  own  words.  After 
a  hasty  review  of  the  early  drama,  he  says 
of  Shakspere : — 

"The  better  one  knows  his  surroundings, 
the  more  clearly  one  begins  to  perceive  that 
his  chief  peculiarity,  when  compared  with 
his  contemporaries,  was  a  somewhat  sluggish 
avoidance  of  needless  invention.  When  any- 
one else  had  done  a  popular  thing,  Shakspere 
was  pretty  sure  to  imitate  him  and  do  it 
better.  But  he  hardly  ever  did  anything 
first.  To  his  contemporaries  he  must  have 
seemed  deficient  in  originality,  at  least  as 
compared  with  Lilly,  or  Marlowe,  or  Ben 
Jonson,  or  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  He 
was  the  most  obviously  imitative  dramatist 
of  all,  following  rather  than  leading  superficial 
fashion. " 


1 8  Critics 

Professor  Wendell  proceeds  to  give  what 
he  is  pleased  to  call  examples  of  Shakspere's 
"lack  of  superficial  originality,"  whatever 
that  may  mean,  and  assumes  that  he  "had 
certainly  done  years  of  work  as  a  dramatic 
hack-writer "  before  the  appearance  of 
"Venus  and  Adonis."  There  is  no  proof, 
not  even  the  doubtful  authority  of  tra- 
dition, that  he  was  ever  a  hack-writer,  or 
ever  revised  or  revamped  the  dramatic 
work  of  another. 

Professor  Wendell  asserts,  upon  the  author- 
ity of  Mr.  Sidney  Lee,  that  Shakspere  came 
to  London  in  1586, — that  is,  when  he  was 
twenty-two.  Aubry,  his  oldest  biographer, 
says  in  1680  that  "this  William,  being 
naturally  inclined  to  poetry  and  acting, 
came  to  London,  I  guess  about  eighteen 
(i.e.,  in  1582),  and  was  an  actor  at  one  of  the 
playhouses,  and  did  act  exceeding  well." 
"  He  began  early  to  make  essays  at  dramatic 
poetry,  and  his  plays  took  well. "  The  date 
is  important,  as  will  soon  be  seen. 

Professor  Wendell  proceeds : — " '  Love's  La- 


vs.  Shakspere  19 

bour  's  Lost '  is  obviously  in  the  manner 
of  Lilly.  '  Henry  VI., '  certainly  collaborative, 
is  a  chronicle  history  of  the  earlier  kind. 
Greene  and  Peele  were  the  chief  makers  of 
such  plays  until  Marlowe  developed  the  type 
into  his  almost  masterly '  Edward  II.'  '  Titus 
Andronicus '  .  .  .  is  a  tragedy  of  blood  much 
in  the  manner  of  Kyd.  'The  Comedy  of 
Errors'  adapts  for  popular  presentation  a 
familiar  kind  of  Latin  comedy. " 

We  may  differ  with  some  of  these  assertions 
because  dissent  is  supported  by  the  highest 
authority,  both  German  and  English.  Ulrici 
says  that  "Lilly's  works  in  fact  contain 
nothing  but  witty  words;  the  actual  wit  of 
comic  characters,  situations,  actions,  and 
incidents  is  almost  entirely  wanting.  Ac- 
cordingly, his  wit  is  devoid  of  dramatic 
power,  his  conception  of  comedy  still  not 
distinct  from  the  ludicrous,  which  is  always 
attached  to  one  object;  he  has  no  idea  of  a 
comic  whole."  " Love's  Labour 's  Lost"  is 
assigned  by  the  best  authority  to  1591-92, 
after  the  appearance  of  "Pericles,"  "Titus 


20  Critics 

Andronicus, "  the  two  parts  of  the  "Con- 
tention," "The  Comedy  of  Errors,"  and 
"The  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona."  Pro- 
fessor Wendell  admits  that  in  "The  Two 
Gentlemen  of  Verona"  Shakspere  did  work 
of  his  own.  After  that,  it  is  not  quite 
"obvious"  that  " Love's  Labour 's  Lost"  is 
in  the  style  of  Lilly,  however  clear  to  the 
critic  may  be  its  "  tedious  length. " 

Lilly  wrote  "  Endymion,  or  The  Man  in  the 
Moon,"  first  published  in  1591;  it  is  "one 
great  and  elaborate  piece  of  flattery  ad- 
dressed to  "Elizabeth  Cynthia,"  that  is,  the 
Queen;  she  instructs  her  ladies  in  Morals 
and  Pythagoras  in  Philosophy.  "Her  kiss 
breaks  the  spell"  which  put  Endymion  into 
his  forty-years  sleep,  upon  which,  and  upon 
his  deliverance  from  which,  "the  action 
principally  turns  within  the  space  of  forty 
years. "  Can  any  impartial  reader  trace  this 
"manner  of  Lilly"  in  "Love's  Labour's 
Lost"? 

Lilly's  "Pleasant  conceited  Comedy," 
called  "  Mother  Bombie, "  appeared  in  1594, 


vs.  Shakspere  21 

his  "  Midas"  in  1592,  and  his  " Most  Excellent 
Comedie  of  Alexander,  Campaspe,  and  Dio- 
genes" in  1584.  "Mother  Bombie"  repre- 
sents four  servants,  treated  partly  as  English, 
partly  as  Roman  slaves,  who  deceive  their 
respective  masters  in  an  "equally  clumsy, 
unlikely,  and  un-motived  manner."  It  is 
difficult  to  see  how  "  Love's  Labour  's  Lost, " 
produced  in  1592,  could  have  imitated 
"  Mother  Bombie, "  produced  in  1 594.  "  Alex- 
ander and  Campaspe"  is  "taken  from  the 
well  known  story  of  the  magnanimity  and 
self-command  with  which  Alexander  curbs 
his  passionate  love  for  his  beautiful  Theban 
captive,  and  withdraws  in  favor  of  her  lover 
Apelles. "  The  most  important  comic  scenes 
afford  Diogenes  the  opportunity  of  emerging 
from  his  tub  and  silencing  all  comers  by  his 
cynical  speeches. 

Lilly's  most  ambitious  work  was  his 
"Euphues,  the  Anatomy  of  Wit,  very 
pleasant  for  all  Gentlemen  to  read, "  " proba- 
bly printed  as  early  as  1579."  Long  before 
Shakspere's    time,    all    "Gentlemen"    had 


22  Critics 

read  it,  and  it  had  introduced  to  the  fashion- 
able world  a  new  language  which  nobody 
but  the  high-born  could  understand. 

If  "Love's  Labour's  Lost"  is  "in  the 
manner  of  Lilly,"  it  is  not  so  in  Professor 
Wendell's  sense,  but  only  as  it  ridicules  with 
unsparing  satire  Lilly's  conceits   and  puns. 

The  statement  that  "Henry  VI."  is  "cer- 
tainly collaborative ' '  is  unwarranted,  because 
it  has  been  successfully  challenged  and 
disproved  by  the  eminent  critics  Hermann 
Ulrici  and  Charles  Knight;  it  is  supported 
only  by  the  guesswork  of  Clark,  Wright, 
Halliwell  and  others  who  assume  to  find  a 
divided  authorship  from  assumed  diver- 
gencies of  style.  The  result  shows  the 
futility  of  the  method.  What  Shakspere 
is  assumed  not  to  have  written  is  assigned 
to  Marlowe,  Greene,  Peele  or  Lodge.  If 
style  cannot  determine  between  them,  what 
warrant  is  there  for  the  conclusion  that 
' '  Henry   VI."  is  "  certainly  collaborative ' '  ? 

The  second  and  third  parts  of  "Henry 
VI. "  are  the  final  form  of  "  The  First  Part  of 


vs.  Shakspere  23 

the  Contention  between  the  Houses  of  York 
and  Lancaster,"  and  "The  True  Tragedy 
of  Richard,  Duke  of  York."  Greene,  in  his 
savage  attack  upon  Shakspere,  quotes  a 
line  which  appears  in  the  "  Third  Part  "  and 
also  in  "The  True  Tragedy."  His  attack 
proves  the  sole  authorship  of  both  by  the 
man  he  maligns,  to  whom  Chettle  apologized 
within  a  year. 

The  argument  of  Knight  has  been  before 
the  critical  world  for  many  years,  and  its 
careful  arrangement  of  facts  and  its  logical 
conclusions  from  them,  have  well-nigh  over- 
come the  prejudices  of  English  scholars  who 
for  many  years  after  the  appearance  of 
Malone's  "Dissertation"  adopted  his  theory 
that  the  two  parts  of  the  "Contention"  con- 
tained nothing  from  Shakspere's  hand.  But 
because  American  writers  are  constantly 
seeking  reputation  for  learning  by  repeating 
Malone's  argument,  it  will  be  useful,  in  the 
interest  of  truth,  to  state  Knight's  answer. 

He  first  takes  up  Malone's  assumption  that 
the  two  parts  of  the  "Contention"  were  not 


24  Critics 

written  by  the  author  of  the  "  First  Part  of 
Henry  VI.,"  and  proves  the  identity  of 
authorship  by  the  intimate  connection  and 
unity  of  action  and  characterization,  and  by 
the  identity  of  manner,  making  the  three 
plays  one  integral  whole.  In  the  "First 
Part  of  Henry  VI."  and  in  the  "First  Part 
of  the  Contention, "  Suffolk  is  the  same  man, 
Margaret  the  same  woman.  In  both  plays, 
Gloster  and  Beaufort  speak  the  same  scorn 
and  defiance  in  the  same  tongue.  The  garden 
scene,  with  its  red  and  white  roses,  is  the 
prologue  to  the  "Contention"  and  indis- 
solubly  links  together  the  three  parts  of 
"  Henry  VI. "  as  one  drama  by  the  same  hand. 
Malone's  first  assumption  was  therefore 
without  foundation.  Even  Collier  only 
claims  that  "it  is  plausibly  conjectured"  that 
Shakspere  did  not  write  the  "First  Part  of 
Henry  VI."  but  that  it  is  an  old  play  most 
likely  written  about  1589.  Who  did  write 
it,  was  before  Knight  and  Ulrici  the  theme 
of  endless  debate.  Hallam  was  "sometimes 
inclined  to  assign  it  to  Greene."     Gervinus 


vs.  Shakspere  25 

in  his  "  Commentaries, "  took  the  same  view, 
but  subsequently  changed  it.  Knight  has 
shown  that  the  three  parts  of  "  Henry  VI. " 
are  "in  the  strictest  sense"  Shakspere's  own, 
and  Ulrici  agrees  with  Knight. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  "  First  Part  " 
was  acted  thirteen  times  in  the  spring  of 
1592  by  Lord  Strange's  men,  under  the  title 
"Henry  VI."  Greene  lived  until  the  2d  of 
September  in  that  year,  and  yet  in  his 
"Groatsworth  of  Wit"  he  made  no  claim 
that  the  "  First  Part  "  was  any  portion  of 
his  "feathers." 

The  next  point  made  is  that  the  two  parts 
of  the  "Contention"  were  written  by  the 
author  of  ' '  Richard  III."  Malone  studiously 
avoided  any  comparison  between  them,  and 
yet  it  is  entirely  clear  that  with  the  "  First 
Part  of  Henry  VI."  they  form  one  drama. 
" '  Richard  III. '  stands  at  the  end  of  the 
series  as  the  avowed  completion  of  a  long 
tragic  history.  The  scenes  of  that  drama 
are  as  intimately  blended  with  the  scenes  of 
the  other  dramas  as  the  scenes  that  belong 


26  Critics 

to  the  separate  dramas  are  blended  among 
themselves.  Its  story  not  only  naturally 
grows  out  of  the  previous  story, — its  char- 
acters are  not  only,  wherever  possible,  the 
same  characters  as  in  the  preceding  dramas, 
— but  it  is  even  more  palpably  linked  with 
them  by  constant  retrospection  to  the  events 
which  they  had  exhibited." 

In  "Richard  III."  Margaret  is  still  the 
same  "she-wolf  of  France"  as  in  the  three 
previous  plays.  If  Shakspere  wrote  those 
terrible  lines  in  "Richard  III.,"  as  all 
scholars  admit, — 

' '  From  forth  the  kennel  of  thy  womb  hath  crept 
A  hell-hound,  that  doth  hunt  us  all  to  death ; 
That  dog,  that  had  his  teeth  before  his  eyes, 
To  worry  lambs,  and  lap  their  gentle  blood; 

O  upright,  just  and  true  disposing  God, 
How  do  I  thank  thee,  that  this  carnal  cur 
Preys  on  the  issue  of  his  mother 's  body, 

Bear  with  me,  I  am  hungry  for  revenge" — 
if   Shakspere   wrote   those    lines,  he    wrote 
those  like  them  from  the  same  lips,  in  the 
second  part  of  the  "Contention  " — 


vs.  Shakspere  27 

"Or,  where's  that  valiant  crook-backed  prodigy, 
Dicky,  your  boy,  that  with  his  grumbling  voice 
Was  wont  to  cheer  his  dad  in  mutinies  ? 
Or,   'mongst  the  rest,   where  is  your  darling 

Rutland? 
Look,  York,  I  dipped  this  napkin  in  the  blood 
That  valiant  Clifford,  with  his  rapier's  point, 
Made  issue  from  the  bosom  of  thy  boy." 

The  two  parts  of  the  "Contention"  are 
admitted  to  be  by  the  same  hand. 

Margaret,  Edward  IV., Elizabeth  his  Queen, 
Clarence  and  Gloster  appear  in  the  "Second 
Part"  and  in  "Richard  III." 

And  here,  the  unity  of  action  and  of  char- 
acterization conclusively  shows  the  com- 
mon authorship,  precisely  as  the  same 
resemblance  unites  the  first  part  of  "  Henry 
VI. "  and  the  "  Contention. " 

The  "  Second  Part  of  the  Contention  "  ends 
thus : — 

"And  now  what  rests  but  that  we  spend  the 
time 
With   stately  triumphs    and    mirthful  comic 

shows, 
Such  as  befit  the  pleasures  of  the  court?" 


28  Critics 

"Richard  III.  "  begins  with  a  continuation 
of  the  triumphant  strain : — 

"Now   are   our  brows   bound   with   victorious 
wreaths ; 
Our  bruised  arms  hung  up  for  monuments; 
Our  stern  alarums    changed  to  merry  meet- 
ings, 
Our  dreadful  marches  to  delightful  measures." 

In  "Richard  III.  "  are  repeated  references 
to  events  in  the  "  Second  Part  " ;  to  the  mur- 
der of  Rutland  by  the  "  black-faced  Clifford  " ; 
to  the  crowning  of  York  with  paper,  and  the 
mocking  offer  of  a  "clout  steeped  in  the 
faultless  blood  of  pretty  Rutland.  "  It  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  these  striking  likenesses, 
references,  unities,  are  not  between  "Rich- 
ard III.  "  and  the  portion  of  the  "  Contention  " 
assigned  to  Shakspere,  but  between  the 
unquestioned  author  of  "Richard"  and  that 
part  of  the  "Contention"  assigned  by  Ma- 
lone  and  his  disciples  to  somebody  else, 
named  only  by  conjecture. 

But  the  most  striking  identity  of  char- 
acter  in   these   three   plays,    showing   con- 


vs.  Shakspere  29 

clusively  the  identity  of  authorship,  appears 
in  Richard  himself:  Knight  justly  and  forci- 
bly says:  "It  seems  the  most  extraordinary 
marvel  that  the  world,  for  more  than  half 
a  century,  should  have  consented  to  believe 
that  the  man  who  absolutely  created  that 
most  wonderful  character,  in  all  its  essential 
lineaments,  in  the  'Second  Part  of  the 
Contention,'  was  not  the  man  who  con- 
tinued it  in  '  Richard  III.'  " 

To  prove  the  point,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
permit  Richard  to  describe  himself. 

This  picture  is  from  the  "Contention": — 

"I  will  go  clad  my  body  in  gay  garments, 
And  lull  myself  within  a  lady 's  lap, 
And  witch  sweet  ladies  with  my  words  and 

looks. 
Oh  monstrous  man,  to  harbour  such  a  thought ! 
Why,  love  did  scorn  me  in  my  mother 's  womb ; 
And,  for  I  should  not  deal  in  her  affairs, 
She  did  corrupt  frail  nature  in  the  flesh, 
And  plac'd  an  envious  mountain  on  my  back, 
Where  sits  deformity  to  mock  my  body; 
To  dry  mine  arm  up  like  a  wither'd  shrimp; 
To  make  my  legs  of  an  unequal  size. 
And  am  I  then  a  man  to  be  beloved  ? 


30  Critics 

Easier  for  me  to  compass  twenty  crowns. 
Tut,  I  can  smile,  and  murder  when  I  smile- 
I  cry  content  to  that  which  grieves  me  most  ■ 
I  can  add  colours  to  the  chameleon ; 
And  for  a  need  change  shapes  with  Proteus, 
And  set  the  aspiring  Cataline  to  school. 
Can  I  do  this,  and  cannot  get  the  crown? 
Tush,  were  it  ten  times  higher,   I'll  pull  it 
down." 

And  here  is  the  companion  portrait  from 
"Richard  III.":— 

"  But  I,  that  am  not  shap'd  for  sporting  tricks, 
Nor   made    to    court    an    amorous    looking- 
glass  ; 
I,  that  am  rudely  stamped,  and  want  love's 

majesty, 
To  strut  before  a  wanton  ambling  nymph ; — 
I,  that  am  curtailed  of  this  fair  proportion, 
Cheated  of  feature  by  dissembling  nature, 
Deform'd,  unfinish'd,  sent  before  my  time 
Into  this  breathing  world,  scarce  half  made  up 
And  that  so  lamely  and  unfashionable 
That  dogs  bark  at  me  as  I  halt  by  them ; — 
Why  I,  in  this  weak,  piping  time  of  peace, 
Have  no  delight  to  pass  away  the  time, 
Unless  to  see  my  shadow  in  the  sun, 
And  descant  on  mine  own  deformity. 
And  therefore,  since  I  cannot  prove  a  lover, 


vs.  Shakspere  31 

To  entertain  these  fair,  well-spoken  days, 
I  am  determined  to  prove  a  villain, 
And  hate  the  idle  pleasure  of  these  days. 
Plots  have  I  laid,  inductions  dangerous, 
By  drunken  prophecies,  libels  and  dreams. 
To  set  my  brother  Clarence  and  the  King 
In  deadly  hate  the  one  against  the  other ; 
And,  if  King  Edward  be  as  true  and  just 
As  I  am  subtle,  false  and  treacherous, 
This  day  should  Clarence  closely  be  mew'd 
up." 

The  pictures  that  Hamlet  showed  his 
mother  were  not  more  unlike  than  these  are 
like.  But  Malone's  examination  was  micro- 
scopic, and  he  used  so  powerful  an  instrument 
that  he  could  not  distinguish  resemblance 
or  difference  beyond  its  field  of  vision.  The 
result  is  that  he  counts  among  the  lines 
mended  by  Shakspere  those  that  differ  from 
those  in  the  "  Contention  "  only  by  a  particle 
or  a  conjunction.  By  this  "  capricious  arith- 
metic,"  only  six  lines  in  the  scenes  with 
Jack  Cade  in  the  "  Second  Part  of  Henry  VI." 
are  credited  to  Shakspere,  and  we  are  asked  to 
believe  that  the  man  who   was  to  fix  the 


32  Critics 

price  of  bread  at  "seven  half -penny  loaves 
for  a  penny, "  to  give  the  "three-hooped  pot 
ten  hoops,"  to  "make  it  felon)''  to  drink 
small  beer,"  was  portrayed  by  Marlowe, 
or  Greene,  or  Peele,  or  Lilly,  or  Kyd,  or 
Nash,  or  somebody  else  still  more  com- 
pletely forgotten. 

If,  then,  "Henry  VI."  is  "certainly  col- 
laborative," a  "chronicle  history  of  the 
earlier  kind,"  as  Professor  Wendell  ex- 
pressly asserts,  it  ought  to  be  shown  for  our 
certain  instruction  who  was  Shakspere's 
collaborator  in  the  three  parts  of  that  drama. 
This  neither  he  nor  any  other  critic  has  yet 
done.  Malone  says  it  was  Greene  or  Peele, 
but,  in  spite  of  the  established  fact  that  we 
have  abundant  remains  of  both,  he  cannot 
determine  between  them  from  style,  or 
rhythm,  or  other  peculiarities;  Collier  "sup- 
poses" it  was  Greene;  Dyce  "conjectures" 
it  was  Marlowe. 

On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  conclusively 
shown  that  Shakspere  is  constantly  quoting 
from  the  "  First  Part  of  Henry  VI.  "  and  the 


vs.  Shakspere  33 

"Contention,"  as  from  himself, — adjectives, 
figures  of  speech,  sentences,  phrases.  The 
cardinal  in  "Henry  VI."  is  called  a  "scarlet 
hypocrite,"  in  "Henry  VIII."  a  "scarlet 
sin."  In  one  play  the  sentence  "I  am  but 
shadow  of  myself"  becomes  in  the  other  "I 
am  the  shadow  of  poor  Buckingham. "  "  My 
book  of  memory"  in  "  Henry"  is  changed 
to  "the  table  of  my  memory"  in  "  Hamlet.  " 
"  Who  now  is  girded  with  a  waist  of  iron  "  is 
repeated  in  "King  John" — "That  as  a 
waist  do  girdle  you  about."  More  striking 
still  is  the  close  resemblance  between  the 
line  in  the  "First  Part"—"  'T  is  but  the 
short 'ning  of  my  life  one  day'"  and  the  line 
in  "Henry  V. " — "Heaven  shorten  Harry's 
happy  life  one  day." 

In  the  "First  Part  of  the  Contention" 
the  character  described  "bears  a  duke's 
whole  revenue  on  her  back."  In  "Henry 
VIII."  this  is  recalled  by  the  line, — they 
"  have  broke  their  backs  with  laying  manors 
on  them";  and  in  "King  John" — "bearing 
their  birthrights  proudly  on  their  backs. " 
3 


34  Critics 

In  "Macbeth"  the  sentence  "Infected  minds 
to  their  deaf  pillows  will  discharge  their 
secrets"  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  line  from 
the  "Contention"  in  which  Duke  Hum- 
phrey's assassin  "whispers  to  his  pillow  as 
to  him." 

"You  have  no  children,  devils,"  is  the 
language  of  the  "Contention";  "he  has  no 
children"  of  "Macbeth." 

"Bring  forth  that  fatal  screech  owl  to  our  house, 
That  nothing  sung  but  blood  and  death" 

are  the  words  of  the  "  Contention  " ; 

"Out  on  you,  owls,  nothing  but  songs  of  death, " 

of  "Richard  III." 

Malone  suppresses  the  obvious  resemblance 
between  these  passages  and  others  like  them, 
and  is  guilty  of  the  same  uncritical  conduct 
in  disregarding  the  classical  allusions  in  the 
"Second  and  Third  Parts  of  Henry  VI." 
which  he  admits  were  added  by  Shakspere, — 
allusions  as  numerous  and  striking  as  those 
in  the  "  First !Part. " 


vs.  Shakspere  35 

Mr.  Richard  Grant  White,  after  reviewing 
the  argument  of  Knight,  reaches  the 
conclusion  that  he  "demolished  Malone's 
theory,"  and  this  conclusion  is  a  sufficient 
answer  to  Professor  Wendell's  unsupported 
assertion  that  "Henry  VI."  is  "certainly 
collaborative. " 

But  Professor  Wendell  further  says  that 
"Greene  and  Peele  were  the  chief  makers 
of  such  plays  until  Marlowe  developed  the 
type  into  his  almost  masterly  'Edward  II.'  " 
We  are  therefore  asked  to  believe  that 
Shakspere,  in  the  historical  plays  bearing 
his  name,  imitated  them  or  one  of  them. 
Examination  of  the  record  will  best  show 
whether  this  latest  critic  has  discovered  any 
evidence  to  support  his  new  charge,  that 
Shakspere  "was  the  most  obviously  imi- 
tative dramatist  of  all,  following  rather  than 
leading  superficial  fashion. " 

Malone,  in  his  "Chronological  Order," 
says:  "  '  The  First  Part  of  King  Henry  VI.,' 
which  I  imagine  was  formerly  known  by 
the  name  of  the  '  Historical  Play  of  King 


36  Critics 

Henry  VI.,'  had,  I  suspect,  been  a  very- 
popular  piece  for  some  years,  before  1592, 
and  perhaps  was  first  exhibited  in  1588  or 
15.89. "  Collier  states  "that  it  is  merely  the 
old  play  on  the  early  events  of  that  reign, 
which  was  most  likely  written  in  1589." 
Knight  concludes  that  "there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  composition  of  this  play 
preceded  that  of  the  two  parts  of  the  '  Con- 
tention.' "  That  these  had  been  upon  the 
stage  before  Greene  died  in  1592  is  proven 
beyond  dispute  by  Greene's  savage  attack, 
at  that  time  Shakspere  was  twenty-eight 
years  old  and  for  at  least  three  years  had 
been  a  shareholder  in  the  Blackfriars 
Theatre,  and,  if  Mr.  Sidney  Lee  is  right, 
had  been  in  London  six  years;  if  old  Aubry 
was  better  informed,  he  had  been  "acting 
exceeding  well"  and  making  "essays  at 
dramatic  poetry  which  took  well"  for  ten 
years. 

The  theory  of  "imitation"  rests  upon  the 
assumption  that  Shakspere  did  not  begin 
to  write  for  the  stage  before  1592;  Collier 


vs.  Shakspere  37 

asserts,  without  the  slightest  support  from 
known  facts,  and  against  the  hostile  testi- 
mony of  Greene,  that  he  wrote  the  "tiger's 
heart  lines"  before  September,  1592,  that 
"the  'History  of  Henry  VI.,' the  'First  Part 
of  the  Whole  Contention,'  and  the  'True 
Tragedy  of  Richard,  Duke  of  York,'  were  all 
three  in  being  before  Shakspere  began  to 
write  for  the  stage";  and  Mr.  Hallam  says, 
more  cautiously,  that  "it  seems  probable 
that  the  old  plays  of  the  '  Contention '  .  .  . 
were  in  great  part  by  Marlowe. " 

And  so,  we  find  Shakspere  in  London, 
from  six  to  ten  years  connected  with  its 
principal  theatre,  but  writing  nothing  for 
its  stage,  not  even  as  a  "hack-writer."  We 
respectfully  dissent  from  this  conclusion 
because  it  lacks  support  either  in  fact  or 
probability.  The  man  who,  from  utter 
penury,  had  in  1589  won  his  way  to  a  lu- 
crative share  in  the  theatre  he  made  illus- 
trious, and  who  wrote  "Romeo  and  Juliet," 
which  first  appeared,  according  to  Ulrici's 
investigation,  in  1592,  was  more  capable  of 


38  Critics 

writing,  and  more  likely  to  have  written,  the 
three  original  pieces  than  Greene  or  Mar- 
lowe, to  one  of  whom,  or  to  some  other 
writer,  the  authorship  is  assigned  by  mere 
conjecture,  from  a  fancied  but  confused  and 
indeterminate  likeness  of  style  or  metre  or 
classical  quotation. 

Marlowe  was  killed  in  a  brawl  with  one 
Francis  Archer,  at  Deptford,  on  the  first  day 
of  June,  1593.  The  only  dramas  that  can 
be  certainly  called  his  are  the  "Two  Parts  of 
Tamburlaine,"  "The  Massacre  of  Paris," 
"Faustus,"  the  "Jew  of  Malta"  and  "Ed- 
ward II. "  His  merits  and  his  faults  have 
been  discussed  by  many  scholars;  his  style 
is  characterized  as  the  "mighty  line";  he  is 
said  by  many  to  have  invented  and  intro- 
duced blank  verse  as  the  vehicle  of  the 
drama,  although  "Gorboduc, "  acted  be- 
fore the  Queen  in  1561  and  published  in 
1565,  Gascogne's  "Jocasta, "  played  in  1566, 
and  Whetstone's  "Promos  and  Cassandra," 
printed  in  1578,  were  wholly  or  partly  in 
blank    verse.     But    it    is    admitted   by    all 


vs.  Shakspere  39 

editors  and  critics  that  Marlowe's  only 
historical  plays  are  "The  Massacre"  and 
"the  almost  masterly  Edward  II.,"  as 
Professor  Wendell  somewhat  ambiguously 
calls  it.  The  "Massacre"  ends  with  the 
death  of  Henry  III.  of  France,  who  was 
assassinated  on  the  ist  of  August,  1589; 
"it  cannot,  therefore,  have  been  written 
earlier  than  about  1590."  Whatever  its 
true  date,  it  is  not  claimed  to  bear  any 
likeness  to  either  part  of  the  "Contention." 
On  the  contrary,  "it  was  a  subject  in  which 
Marlowe  would  naturally  revel;  for  in  the 
progress  of  the  action,  blood  could  be  made 
to  flow  as  freely  as  water."  The  resem- 
blance is  sought  in  his  Edward  II.,  which, 
as  all  the  facts  tend  to  show,  was  his  latest 
work,  written  after  the  "Massacre"  and 
certainly  not  published  in  his  lifetime.  It 
was  entered  at  Stationer's  Hall  in  July,  1593, 
a  little  more  than  a  month  after  Marlowe's 
death.  But  here  stands  the  "Contention" 
with  a  fixed  date,  proved  to  have  been  in 
existence  "in  or  close  upon  the  first  half  of 


4o  Critics 

the  decade  commencing  in  1585,"  and  the 
admission  of  all  scholars  that  it  preceded 
Marlowe's  "  Edward  II. "  If,  therefore,  "  Mar- 
lowe wrote  one  or  both  parts  of  the  "Con- 
tention," the  extravagant  assumption  must 
be  made  "that  his  mind  was  so  thor- 
oughly disciplined  at  the  period  when  he 
produced  'Tamburlaine,'  'Faustus'  and  the 
'Jew  of  Malta'  that  he  was  able  to  lay 
aside  every  element,  whether  of  thought 
or  expression,  by  which  those  plays  are 
characterized,  adopt  essentially  different  prin- 
ciples for  the  dramatic  conduct  of  a  story, 
copy  his  characters  from  living  and  breath- 
ing models  of  actual  men;  come  down  from 
his  pomp  and  extravagance  of  language,  not 
to  reject  poetry,  but  to  ally  poetry  with 
familiar  and  natural  thoughts;  and  delineate 
crime  not  with  the  glaring  and  fantastic 
pencil  that  makes  demons  spout  forth  fire 
and  blood  .  .  .  but  with  a  severe  portraiture 
of  men  who  walk  in  broad  daylight  upon  the 
common  earth,  rendering  the  ordinary  pas- 
sions of  their  fellows, — pride,  and  envy,  and 


vs.  Shakspere  41 

ambition,  and  revenge, — most  fearful,  from 
their  alliance  with  stupendous  intellect  and 
unconquerable  energy.  This  was  what  Mar- 
lowe must  have  done  before  he  could  have  con- 
ducted a  single  sustained  scene  of  either  part 
of  the  '  Contention  ' ;  before  he  could  have 
depicted  the  fierce  hatreds  of  Beaufort  and 
Gloster,  the  never-subdued  ambition  of 
Margaret  and  York,  the  patient  suffering, 
amidst  taunting  friends  and  reviling  enemies, 
of  Henry,  and,  above  all,  the  courage,  the 
activity,  the  tenacity,  the  self-possession, 
the  intellectual  supremacy  and  the  passion- 
less ferocity  of  Richard. " 

Does  it  need  more  to  show  that  Marlowe 
was  not  the  author  of  the  "Contention"? 
Here  is  the  proof,  and  it  does  not  rest  upon 
conjecture,  or  inference  from  disputed  facts, 
but  upon  records  that  have  survived  the 
waste  of  three  centuries.  The  "First  Part 
of  the  Contention"  was  printed  by  Thomas 
Creed,  for  Thomas  Millington,  in  1594; 
"The  True  Tragedy  of  Richard,"  the  old 
name  of  the  "  Second  Part  of  the  Contention, " 


42  Critics 

by  "P.  S. "  for  Thomas  Millington,  in  1595. 
The  title  page  gives  the  name  of  no  author 
for  either  play,  and  it  is  claimed  by  eminent 
authority  that  both  were  piratical  editions; 
but  if  Marlowe  was  the  unquestioned  author, 
were  not  his  friends  and  associates  still 
living,  three  years  after  his  death,  to  claim 
the  honor  of  creating  two  dramas  which 
immeasurably  surpassed  any  other  he  ever 
wrote?  If  it  be  asked  why  Shakspere's 
friends  did  not  claim  the  authorship  for  him, 
it  is  answered  that  as  soon  as  another 
edition  appeared,  they  did.  In  161 9,  three 
years  after  his  death,  a  new  edition  of  these 
very  plays  appeared,  with  Shakspere's  full 
name  on  the  title  page,  and  enlarged  by 
additions  from  the  second  and  third  parts  of 
"Henry  VI."  And  this  proof  is  further 
supported:  In  an  entry  in  the  Stationer's 
Registers  under  date  of  April  19,  1602, 
appears  the  following  remark: — "Thorn.  Pa- 
vier:  By  assignment  from  Th.  Millington 
salvo  jure  cujuscunque :  the  First  and  Second 
Parts   of   'Henrv  VI.',  two  books."     This 


vs.  Shakspere  43 

entry  refers  to  the  two  plays  first  published 
in  1594  and  1595,  the  first  of  which  is  always 
called  "The  First  Part  of  the  Contention," 
and  both  of  which  in  the  edition  of  161 9  were 
tinder  the  title  of  "The  whole  Contention 
between  the  two  famous  Houses  of  Lan- 
caster and  York,"  by  the  same  Th.  Pavier 
who  had  received  them  "by  assignment" 
from  the  original  publisher  of  the  editions 
of  1594  and  1595, — Thomas  Millington. 
Pavier  knew  in  161 9,  and  therefore  put  his 
name  on  the  title  page  of  his  edition,  that 
Shakspere  was  the  author  of  the  two 
parts  of  the  "Contention,"  but  instead  of 
giving  them  the  extended  titles  of  the  former 
editions,  briefly  and  inaccurately  designated 
them  as  "The  First  and  Second  Parts  of 
Henry  VI."  It  results  from  these  facts, 
that  when  Malone  was  attempting  to  show 
that  Shakspere  was  imitating  Marlowe's 
"  Edward  II.  "  in  the  lines— 

"Scorning  that  the  lowly  earth 
Should  drink  his  blood,  mounts  up  to  the  air, " 

and — 


44  Critics 

"Frown'st  thou  thereat,  aspiring  Lancaster?" 
he  forgot  the  important  and  established  truth 
that  Marlowe  was  imitating  Shakspere  in  the 
"Contention." 

For  two  centuries,  until  Malone's  "Dis- 
sertation," nobody  had  claimed  that  Mar- 
lowe wrote  any  portion  of  the  "  Contention  "  ; 
for  nearly  two  centuries,  the  "Second  and 
Third  Parts  of  Henry  VI."  had  appeared  as 
the  sole  work  of  Shakspere,  embodying  act 
for  act,  scene  for  scene,  event  for  event  and 
character  for  character,  the  whole  "Con- 
tention," and  nobody  had  claimed  that  he 
was  not  the  sole  author  of  both.  We 
therefore  respectfully  submit  that  Professor 
Wendell  has  no  warrant  for  his  assertion  that 
"to  his  contemporaries  he  must  have  seemed 
deficient  in  originality,  as  least  as  compared 
with  Lilly  or  Marlowe. "  "  Henry  VI. "  was 
not  "collaborative."  Marlowe  did  not  de- 
velop the  type  of  chronicle  history  into  his 
"  almost  masterly  Edward  II. " 

But  Professor  Wendell  further  asserts 
that    "Greene    and    Peele    were    the    chief 


vs.  Shakspere  45 

makers  of  such  plays"  before  Marlowe,  and 
the  implication  is  that  Shakspere,  in  his 
historical  plays,  "followed  the  superficial 
fashion"  set  by  them. 

Of  Greene's  dramas,  only  two  purport  to 
have  been  his  work, — "Friar  Bacon  and 
Friar  Bungay"  and  "The  Scottish  History 
of  James  the  Fourth.  "  "  Orlando  Furioso, " 
generally  assigned  to  him,  has  no  name  on 
its  title  page ;  "  Alphonsus,  King  of  Aragon, " 
is  probably  his,  as  it  bears  the  initials  "  R.  G. " ; 
"The  Looking  Glass  for  London  and  Eng- 
land" bears  the  joint  names  of  Lodge  and 
Greene;  "The  pleasant  conceyted  comedy 
of  George-a-Green,  the  Pinner  of  Wake- 
field," sometimes  assigned  to  him,  is  of 
doubtful  authorship. 

"Friar  Bacon  and  Friar  Bungay"  is 
characterized  by  Knight  as  "the  old  story 
of  the  Brazen  Head.  There  is  here,  unques- 
tionably, more  facility  in  the  versifica- 
tion, much  less  of  what  we  may  distinguish 
by  the  name  of  fustian,  and  some  ap- 
proach to  simplicity  and  even   playfulness. 


46  Critics 

But  whenever  Greene  gets  hold  of  a  king, 
he  invariably  makes  him  talk  in  the  right 
royal  style  which  we  have  already  seen ;  and 
our  Henry  III.  does  not  condescend  to  dis- 
course in  a  bit  more  simple  English  than  the 
Soldan  of  Egypt  or  the  King  of  Nineveh. " 

This  play  was  first  printed  in  1594. 

The  old  popular  tradition  of  Friar  Bacon 
and  his  magic  arts  is  interwoven  with  the 
loves  of  Prince  Edward  and  Earl  Lacy. 
Legend  and  love  story  have  nothing  in 
common,  and  their  connection  is  merely 
accidental.  The  Friar's  design  fails  through 
the  stupidity  of  his  servant,  but  no  ex- 
planation is  given  of  the  folly  of  entrusting 
such  weighty  matters  to  a  fool.  The  love 
story  turns  upon  the  retirement  from  the 
amorous  contest  in  favor  of  Lacy,  but  no 
reason  is  assigned  for  the  resulting  trials  of 
the  successful  party.  There  is  no  glimpse 
of  history  or  of  historical  chronicle  in  the 
piece.  Of  one  thing  we  may  be  certain: 
With  all  his  wonderful  power,  Shakspere 
was  incapable  of  imitating  "The  honorable 


vs.  Shakspere  47 

Historie  of  Frier  Bacon  and  Frier  Bon  gay. " 
"James  the  Fourth"  appeared  in  print  in 
1598  tinder  the  title  "The  Scottish  Historie 
of  James  the  Fourth,  slaine  at  Flodden, 
intermisted  with  a  pleasant  Comedie  &c." 
Of  this  drama  Ulrici  says  that  "Greene, 
led  astray  perhaps  by  Marlowe,  ventured 
upon  a  task  quite  beyond  him.  He  as  yet 
obviously  had  no  idea  of  the  dignity  of  his- 
tory, of  an  historical  spirit,  of  an  historical 
conception  of  the  subject,  or  of  an  historical 
form  of  the  drama.  History  with  him 
resolves  itself  into  a  romance. "  This  opin- 
ion is  fully  sustained  by  the  play  itself; 
James  falls  in  love  with  Ida,  the  daughter 
of  the  Countess  of  Arran,  but  in  spite  of  his 
disloyalty,  his  Queen  is  faithful.  James 
repents  for  the  very  good  reason  that  Ida 
spurns  him,  but  not  until  he  has  ordered 
the  Queen  to  be  killed.  The  murder  is 
unsuccessfully  attempted,  and  after  her 
partial  recovery,  she  rushes  between  the 
armies,  disarms  the  hostility  of  her  father, 
the  English  King,  and  wins  back  her  hus- 


48  Critics 

band's  love.  The  chief  characters  are 
Oberon,  King  of  Fairies,  and  Rohan,  a 
"misanthropic  recluse."  Rohan  has  this 
veracious  "history"  enacted  before  Oberon, 
and  so  justifies  himself  for  having  with- 
drawn from  a  bad  world.  This  is  the 
"pleasant  Comedie"  which  is  connected 
with  the  main  action  by  Slipper,  Rohan's 
son,  who  plays  the  part  of  clown.  It  is  not 
strange  that  the  impartial  critic  summed  up 
the  review  with  the  remark  that  "the  at- 
mosphere of  history  was  evidently  too  pure 
and  cool  for  Greene's  taste.  "  The  play  is  a 
romance  from  beginning  to  end;  it  has  no 
pretension  to  the  character  of  an  historical 
drama.  Mr.  Dyce  says  of  it:  "From  what 
source  our  author  derived  the  materials  of 
this  strange  fiction  I  have  not  been  able  to 
discover;  nor  could  Mr.  David  Laing  of 
Edinburg,  who  is  so  profoundly  versed  in 
the  ancient  literature  of  his  country,  point 
out  to  me  any  Scottish  chronicle  or  tract 
which  might  have  afforded  hints  to  the  poet 
for  its  composition. " 


vs.  Shakspere  49 

The  play  originally  called  in  1599  "The 
Chronicle  History  of  Alphonsus,  King  of 
Aragon"  is  based  upon  a  semi-historical 
foundation,  and  yet,  as  the  highest  authority 
has  pronounced,  Greene  "has  erected  such 
a  romantic  and  fantastic  structure  upon  this 
foundation,  that  it  would  be  doing  him  an 
injustice  to  judge  his  work  from  the  stand- 
point of  an  historical  drama. " 

It  is  plainly  an  imitation  of  "  Tamburlaine." 
Alphonsus,  singly  and  alone,  conquers  the 
crown  of  Aragon  and  half  the  world  in 
addition,  accompanied  by  monotonous  noise 
and  blood.  The  ghost  of  Mahomet  is  intro- 
duced as  if  to  give  variety  to  the  scene,  but 
fails  utterly,  and,  nobody  can  guess  why, 
refuses  to  give  the  required  oracle,  but 
finally,  importuned  by  the  attendant  priests, 
gives  a  false  one.  Even  the  marriage  of 
Alphonsus  with  Iphigenia  fails  to  enliven 
the  style  of  the  poet.  But  the  machinery 
that  moves  the  action  is  all  wonderful  and 
striking  and  quite  un-historical.  Venus  and 
the  Muses  recite  the  Prologue  and  act  the 


5o  Critics 

dumb  shows,  representing  at  the  beginning 
of  each  act  a  retrospection  of  the  Past  and 
a  forecast  of  the  Future.  And  Venus  herself, 
with  the  help  of  Calliope,  writes  the  play, 
"not  with  pen  and  ink,  but  with  flesh  and 
blood  and  living  action."  "This  ...  in- 
dicates the  fundamental  idea  of  the  piece. 
Wherever  the  all-powerful  goddess  of  love 
and  beauty  herself  plans  the  actions  and 
destinies  of  mortals,  there  extraordinary 
things  come  to  pass  with  playful  readiness 
and  grace. " 

"The  Historie  of  Orlando  Furioso, "  issued 
from  the  London  press  in  1594,  is  a  light 
production  hastily  sketched  for  a  Court 
Festival,  based  upon  the  great  romance  of 
Ariosto,  "but  the  superstructure  presents 
the  most  extravagant  deviations  from 
Ariosto's  plan.  The  pomposity  of  the  dic- 
tion is  not  amiss  in  the  mouths  of  such 
stately  personages  as  the  Emperor  of  Africa, 
the  Soldan  of  Egypt,  the  Prince  of 
Mexico,  the  King  of  the  Isles  and  the  mad 
Orlando. " 


vs.  Shakspere  51 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  quote  an  example : 

"Discourteous  woman,  nature 's fairest  ill, 

The  woe  of  man,  that  first  created  curse, 

Base  female  sex,  sprung  from  black  Ate's  loins, 

Proud,  disdainful,  cruel  and  unjust, 

Whose  words  are  shaded  with  enchanting  wiles, 

Worse  than  Medusa  mateth  all  our  minds ; 

And  in  their  hearts  sit  shameless  treachery, 

Turning  a  truthless  vile  circumference  ! 

O,  could  my  fury  paint  their  furies  forth! 

For  hell 's  no  hell,  compared  to  their  hearts, 

Too  simple  devils  to  conceal  their  arts; 

Born  to  be  plagues  unto  the  thoughts  of  men, 

Brought  for  eternal  pestilence  to  the  world." 

It  is  difficult  to  think  of  Shakspere  "bom- 
basting  out  a  blank  verse  "  like  this. 

The  dramatic  characters  recite  passages 
from  the  classic  authors;  the  enchantress 
Melissa  gives  a  whole  speech  in  Latin 
hexameters;  Orlando  bursts  into  Italian 
rhymes  to  utter  his  rage  against  Angelica, — 
"a  want  of  taste,"  says  the  commentator, 
"  which  brings  the  already  unsuccessful 
scene,  the  centre  of  the  whole  action,  down 
to  the  sphere  of  the  ridiculous," 


52  Critics 

Nobody  has  been  able  to  determine  how 
much  of  the  "  Looking  Glass  for  London 
and  England"  was  written  by  Lodge,  how 
much  by  Greene.  Knight  thinks  the  poetry 
should  be  assigned  to  Greene.  The  whole 
piece  is  made  up  of  an  extraordinary  mixture 
of  Kings  of  Nineveh,  Crete,  Cicilia,  and 
Paphlagonia;  of  usurers,  judges,  lawyers, 
clowns,  and  ruffians;  of  angels,  magi,  sailors, 
lords, and  "one  clad  in  Devil's  attire."  The 
Prophet  Hosea  presides  over  the  whole  per- 
formance, with  the  exception  of  the  first 
and  last  scenes, — a  silent,  invisible  observer 
of  the  characters,  for  the  purpose  of  uttering 
an  exhortation  to  the  people  at  the  end  of 
each  scene,  that  they  should  take  warning 
from  Nineveh.  There  is  a  flash  of  lightning 
which  kills  two  of  the  royal  family,  and  then 
another  which  strikes  the  parasite,  Radagon. 
Both  admonitions  are  equally  futile.  At 
last  an  angel  prays  repeatedly,  and  in 
answer  Jonah  is  sent  to  preach  repen- 
tance. His  mission  is  successful,  and  at  last 
Jehovah  himself  descends  in  angelic  form  and 


vs.  Shakspere  53 

proclaims  mercy.  It  has  been  thought  that 
the  piece  was  writtin  to  silence  the  Puritan 
zealots  who  claimed  that  the  secular  drama 
had  demoralized  the  stage,  and  forgotten 
the  purity  of  the  Moral  and  Miracle  plays; 
but  it  has  never  been  suggested  that  this  was 
a  "chronicle  history." 

"  George-a-Greene,  the  Pinner  of  Wake- 
field," is  not  generally  credited  to  Greene, 
but  Ulrici,  from  the  style,  assigns  it  to  him. 
It  makes  no  claim  as  an  historical  drama, 
but  is  based  upon  two  popular  legends  and 
some  events  during  the  reign  of  King 
Edward,  without  specifying  which  king  of 
that  name,  and  "without  regard  to  chron- 
ological order  or  historical  truth." 

Such  is  a  brief  and  fair  summary  of  the 
works,  whether  authentic  or  doubtful,  of 
Robert  Greene.  Let  us  turn  to  those  of 
Peele,   the  friend   of  Greene  and  Marlowe. 

Dyce  assigns  to  him  "The  History  of  the 
two  valiant  Kinghts,  Syr  Clyomon,  Knight 
of  the  Golden  Shield,  sonne  of  the  King  of 
Denmark,    and    Syr    Clamides    the    White 


54  Critics 

Knight,"  printed  without  the  author's  name 
in  1584. 

The  subject,  a  chivalrous  romance,  with 
dragons  and  sorcerers  and  lost  princesses, 
is  more  a  narrative  in  dialogue  than  a  drama. 
It  is  full  of  long  speeches  without  any  real 
action.  It  resembles  the  "Moralities":  the 
clown  is  called  "Subtle  Shift,"  sometimes 
' '  Vice. "  "  Rumour ' '  and  ' '  Providence  ' '  ap- 
pear, the  one  to  tell  Clyomon  what  has 
happened  during  his  absence,  the  other  to 
prevent  Clyomon 's  mistress  "from  com- 
mitting rash  and  unnecessary  suicide."  The 
clown  calls  the  piece  a  "pageant";  it  cannot 
be  called  "a  chronicle  history." 

Peele's  "  Arraignment  of  Paris,  a  Pastorall" 
is  a  court  drama  in  the  style  of  Lilly,  intended 
to  flatter  the  Queen,  "poor in  action  but  all 
the  richer  in  gallant  phrases,  provided  with 
songs,  one  in  Italian,  and  with  all  kinds  of 
love  scenes  between  shepherds  and  shep- 
herdesses, nymphs  and  terrestrial  gods";  the 
diction  is  interesting,  because  it  shows 
revolt  from  the  prevailing  "euphuism,"  and 


vs.  Shakspere  55 

therefore  Peele  must  be  given  the  praise  of 
first  opposing  Lilly's  affected  style. 

The  subject  and  action  are  as  far  removed 
from  history  as  earth  from  heaven;  Paris 
is  accused  by  Juno  and  Pallas  before  the 
assembled  gods,  for  having  pronounced  an 
unjust  sentence;  he  is  released  without 
punishment,  but  as  the  fair  plaintiffs  persist 
in  their  appeal,  the  decision  is  left  to  Diana, 
who  then  awards  the  fatal  apple,  not  to 
any  of  the  three  goddesses,  but  to  the  wise 
nymph  Eliza,  who  is  as  chaste  as  she  is 
beautiful  and  powerful.  Juno,  Pallas,  and 
Venus  of  course  agree  to  this  decision  and 
lay  all  their  gifts  at  the  feet  of  the  Queen. 
At  the  end,  even  the  three  Fates  appear,  in 
order,  in  a  Latin  chant,  to  deliver  up  the 
emblems  of  their  power,  and  therewith  the 
power  itself,  to  the  exalted  nymph. 

"The  Old  Wife's  Tale,  a  pleasant  con- 
ceited Comedie, "  published  in  1595,  is  a 
dramatized  old  wife's  story  told  to  three 
erring  fancies,  Frolic,  Antic  and  Fantastic, 
quite  in  the  style  of  a  fairy  tale,  "always 


56  Critics 

wavering  in  the  peculiar  twilight,  between 
profound  sense  and  nonsense,  between 
childish  play  and  matured  humor."  Two 
brothers  who  have  lost  their  sisters  appear, 
and  then  an  insolent  giant,  swaggering  with 
a  double-edged  sword  and  attended  by  an 
enamored  fool,  and  finally  a  knight-errant 
devoting  his  fortune  to  pay  the  stingy  sex- 
ton for  the  burial  of  a  victim  of  poverty; 
they  are  now  hunting  for  the  princess,  the 
sisters,  and  the  beloved  lady,  and  to  free 
them  from  the  sorcerer;  none  of  them 
succeed  in  the  effort,  except  the  knight, 
"and  he  only  by  the  help  of  the  ghost  of 
the   poor   Jack   whose    body   he  buried." 

"  The  Battel  of  Alcazar  fought  in  Barbarie" 
is  attributed  to  Peele  and  was  published 
in  1586,  soon  after  Marlowe's  "  Tamburlaine," 
after  which  it  is  modelled  and  to  which  it 
expressly  refers.  The  commentator  says: 
"It  is  a  mere  battle  piece,  full  of  perpetual 
fighting  and  noise,  of  which  the  action  almost 
exclusively  consists."  There  is  nothing  to 
show  that  it  had  any  connection  with  history 


vs.  Shakspere  57 

or  chronicle,  or  was  anything  better  than  a 
hurriedly  written,  spectacular  drama. 

The  "Edward  I. "  of  Peele  bears  this  title: 
"The  famous  Chronicle  of  King  Edward  the 
First,  surnamed  Edward  Longshanks,  with 
his  Return  from  the  Holy  Land.  Also  the 
life  of  Llewellen  Rebell  in  Wales.  Lastly, 
the  sinking  of  Queene  Elinor,  who  sunk  at 
Charing-crosse,  and  rose  again  at  Potters- 
hith,  now  named  Queenshith." 

The  title  itself  proves  that  it  is  not  a 
"chronicle"  but  an  unhistorical  fiction. 
The  events  pass  by  in  one  straight,  con- 
tinuous line,  the  dramatic  personages  are 
characterized  almost  solely  by  their  actions, 
the  language  is  a  mere  sketch.  The  Queen 
murders  the  Lady  Mayoress,  and  on  her 
death-bed  confesses  a  double  adultery;  she 
commits  perjury  by  denying  the  murder 
and  calls  upon  Heaven  to  sink  her  into  the 
depths  of  the  earth  if  she  had  spoken  falsely. 
"That  she  'sunk  at  Charing-crosse'  before 
it  was  erected  to  her  memory,  is  a  sufficiently 
remarkable    circumstance   in    Peele 's    play, 


58  Critics 

but  it  is  more  remarkable  that,  assuming 
to  be  a  'famous  Chronicle,'  and  in  one  or 
two  of  the  events  following  the  Chronicle, 
he  has  represented  the  Queen  altogether 
to  be  a  fiend  in  female  shape, — proud, 
adulterous,  cruel,  treacherous  and  bloody." 
The  play  contradicts  the  Chronicle,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  called  a  chronicle 
history.  Hollinshed,  the  source  of  all  Shak- 
spere's  histories,  says  of  Queen  Eleanor: 
"She  was  a  godly  and  modest  princess, 
full  of  pity,  and  one  that  showed  much 
favor  to  the  English  nation,  ready  to  relieve 
every  man's  grief  that  sustained  wrong,  and 
to  make  those  friends  that  were  at  discord, 
so  far  as  in  her  lay." 

Mr.  Hallam  has  characterized  this  violation 
of  historical  truth  as  a  "hideous  mis- 
representation of  the  virtuous  Eleanor  of 
Castile.  .  .  .  The  'Edward  I.' of  Peele 
is  a  gross  tissue  of  absurdity  with  some 
facility  of  language,  but  nothing  truly  good." 
Nobody  but  Professor  Wendell  has  ever  even 
intimated   that   Shakspere   imitated  it. 


vs.  Shakspere  59 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  consider  "The 
Love  of  King  David  and  Fair  Bethsabe," 
published  in  1599,  because,  in  the  deliberate 
opinion  of  those  who  have  studied  the 
subject  most  deeply,  it  was  not  written  till 
"Romeo  and  Juliet"  was  upon  the  stage 
in  1592.  In  it  there  are  distinct  traces  of 
Shakspere's  influence.  "The  love  scenes, 
and  the  images  and  similes  describing 
the  charms  of  the  beauty  of  nature,  remind 
one  of  those  incomparable  pictures  in  '  Romeo 
and  Juliet. '"  In  Peele's  other  plays  he  has 
made  but  feeble  attempts  to  depict  love, 
beauty,  or  grace;  in  "King  David"  he  has 
"depicted  them  with  a  remarkably  high 
degree  of  success." 

These  are  all  the  works  of  Peele  which 
have  come  down  to  our  time,  and  after  this 
review  of  his  and  of  Greene's  dramas,  it 
does  not  seem  that  "Greene  and  Peele 
were  the  chief  makers  of  such  plays,"  that 
is,  of  "chronicle  histories,"  before  Marlowe. 
The  truth  is,  that  all  the  supporters  of 
Malone's   theory  have  taken   Malone's  un- 


60  Critics 

supported  statement  as  indisputable  fact; 
they  have  not  sufficiently  examined  the 
works  of  Greene  and  Peele,  but  have  assumed, 
as  Malone  assumed,  that  Greene's  charge 
in  his  "  Groat's  Worth  of  Wit "  was  conclusive 
proof  that  Shakspere  did  not  write  the  two 
parts  of  the  "Contention, "  and  that  Greene, 
or  one  of  the  friends  he  addresses,  was  in 
fact  the  author. 

This  assumption  has  again  and  again  been 
shown  to  be  without  foundation.  There 
was  no  point  in  Greene's  dying  sarcasm 
if  he  merely  quoted  a  line  written  by  himself ; 
if  he  quoted  one  written  by  Shakspere, 
the  whole  argument  of  Professor  Wendell, 
that  "Henry  VI.'  was  "certainly  collabo- 
rative," that  his  early  work  was  "hack- 
writing,"  that  "he  hardly  ever  did  anything 
first,"  that  "to  his  contemporaries  he 
must  have  seemed  deficient  in  originality," 
falls  to  the  ground. 

Having  done  what  Malone  failed  to  do, 
and  what  Professor  Wendell  seems  not  to 
have  done, — having  reviewed  at  some  length 


vs.  Shakspere  61 

the  works  of  Shakspere 's  contemporaries  to 
whom  the  older  chronicle  plays  are  attributed 
by  Malone, — we  invoke,  in  support  of  the 
position  we  have  taken,  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  Charles  Knight  in  his  "  Essay  on  Henry 
VI.  and  Richard  III." 

"The  dramatic  works  of  Greene,  which 
were  amongst  the  rarest  treasures  of  the 
bibliographer,  have  been  rendered  accessible 
to  the  general  reader  by  the  valuable  labors 
of  Mr.  Dyce.  To  those  who  are  familiar 
with  these  works  we  will  appeal,  without 
hesitation,  in  saying  that  the  character 
of  Greene's  mind,  and  his  habits  of  composi- 
tion, rendered  him  utterly  incapable  of 
producing,  not  the  Two  Parts  of  the  'Con- 
tention, '  or  one  Part,  but  a  single  sustained 
scene  of  either  Part. 

"  And  yet  a  belief  has  been  long  entertained 
in  England,  to  which  some  wise  and  judicious 
still  cling,  that  Greene  and  Peele  either 
wrote  the  Two  Parts  of  the  'Contention' 
in  conjunction;  or  that  Greene  wrote  one 
Part  and  Peele  the  other  Part ;  or  that,  at 


62  Critics 

any  rate,  Greene  had  some  share  in  these 
dramas.  This  was  the  theory  propagated 
by  Malone  in  his  'Dissertation';  and  it 
rests  not  upon  the  slightest  examination 
of  these  writers,  but  solely  on  the  far-famed 
passage  in  Greene's  posthumous  pamphlet, 
the  'Groat's  Worth  of  Wit,'  in  which  he 
points  out  Shakspere  as  'a  crow  beautified 
with  our  feathers.'  The  hypothesis  seems 
to  us  to  be  little  less  than  absurd.  .  .  . 
He  parodies  a  line  from  one  of  the  produc- 
tions of  which  he  had  been  so  plundered,  to 
carry  the  point  home,  to  leave  no  doubt 
as  to  the  sting  of  his  allusion.  But,  as  has 
been  most  justly  observed,  the  epigram 
would  have  wanted  its  sting  if  the  line 
parodied  had  not  been  that  of  the  very 
writer  attacked." 

"Titus  Andronicus"  is  a  "tragedy  of 
blood"  written  by  Shakspere,  according 
to  the  highest  authority,  when  he  was 
twenty- three  or  twenty-four  years  of  age. 
Ben  Johnson  says,  in  his  "  Bartholomew 
Fair"  (1614),  that  it  had  been  on  the  stage 


vs.  Shakspere  63 

for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years.  It  was 
doubtless  a  very  early  work,  but  whether 
"much  in  the  manner  of  Kyd,"  as  Professor 
Wendell  asserts,  can  be  best  determined 
by  reference  to  Kyd's  works.  The  claim 
has  been  made  by  other  critics  that  "Titus" 
was  "  collaborative, "  but  Professor  Wendell's 
is  that  it  was  an  "imitation." 

"The  Tragedy  of  Soliman  and  Perseda," 
first  printed  in  1599,  is  of  doubtful  author- 
ship, but  has  sometimes  been  credited  to 
Kyd.  "The  piece  still  bears  a  striking 
resemblance  to  the  old  Moral  Plays  and 
thereby  proves  its  relatively  early  origin. 
A  chorus  consisting  of  the  allegorical  figures 
Love,  Happiness,  and  Death  opens  the  play 
and  each  separate  act,  and  ends  it  with  a  con- 
troversy in  which  all  the  personified  powers 
boast  of  their  deeds  and  triumphs  over  the 
others,  till  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  act  Death 
remains  the  victor,  and  the  whole  concludes 
with  a  eulogy  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the  only 
mortal  whom  Death  does  not  venture  to 
approach."     "Titus    Andronicus"    will    be 


64  Critics 

searched  in  vain  for  "much"  or  little  of  this 
"manner  of  Kyd. " 

"The  First  Part  of  Jeronimo,  with  the 
Warres  of  Portugal  and  the  Life  and  Death 
of  Don  Andrea,"  not  published  till  1605,  is 
not  an  authentic  work  of  Kyd,  but  is  at- 
tributed to  him  by  some  because,  judging 
from  the  subject,  it  belongs  to  "  The  Spanish 
Tragedy  "  and  is  regarded  by  Henslowe  as  the 
first  part  of  it.  A.  W.  Schlegel  says  that 
"both  of  these  parts  are  full  of  absurdities, 
that  the  author  had  ventured  upon  describing 
the  most  forced  situations  and  passions 
without  being  aware  of  his  want  of  power, 
that  especially  the  catastrophe  of  the  second 
part,  which  is  intended  to  surpass  every 
conceivable  horror,  is  introduced  in  a  trivial 
manner,  merely  producing  a  ludicrous  effect, 
and  that  the  whole  was  like  a  child's  drawings, 
wholly  unmindful  of  the  laws  of  proportion." 

Ulrici  maintains  that  "Jeronimo"  itself 
may  be  treated  as  a  play  in  three  parts 
connected  only  externally:  first,  the  war 
between   Portugal   and   Spain;  second,   the 


vs.  Shakspere  65 

life  and  death  of  Don  Andrea,  and  third  the 
acts  of  Jeronimo,  who  is,  however,  only  a 
subordinate  character.  But  whether  the 
play  be  treated  as  a  whole  or  as  composed 
of  substantially  separate  parts,  its  action 
and  interest  are  centred  in  the  story  of 
the  love  of  Don  Andrea  and  Bellimperia ; 
Lorenzo,  her  brother,  persecutes  both  because 
he  is  jealous  of  Andrea's  success.  Andrea 
is  finally  killed;  at  his  funeral,  his  ghost 
appears  for  no  assigned  reason,  except  to 
exchange  greeting  with  his  friend  Horatio. 
"Revenge"  and  Charon  also  appear,  the  one 
"  to  forbid  Andrea's  ghost  from  divulging  the 
secrets  of  Hell,  the  other  to  accompany 
him  back  to  the  lower  regions,"  and  the 
learned  critic  adds  that  "this  allegorical 
by-play  is  inserted  so  arbitrarily,  so  inappro- 
priately and  so  unmeaningly,  that  it  forms 
the  best  standpoint  for  judging  the  piece 
as  regards  its  composition  and  poetical 
character.  In  this  respect  its  value  is  next 
to  nothing.'" 
If  Kyd  wrote  "Jeronimo,"  of  which  there 

5 


66  Critics 

is  no  satisfactory  proof,  and  if  Shakspere 
wrote  "Titus,"  "much  in  the  manner  of 
Kyd, "  which  we  venture  to  think  more 
doubtful  than  the  authorship  of  "  Jeronimo," 
then  Shakspere's  supposed  imitation  was 
much  "better"  than  the  original  "popular 
thing." 

That  Kyd  wrote  "The  Spanish  Tragedy, 
containing  the  lamentable  end  of  Don  Horatio 
and  Bellimperia  with  the  pitifull  Death  of 
Old  Hieronimo, "  first  published  in  1599, 
is  certified  by  Hey  wood  in  his  "  Apology  for 
Actors, "  and  there  is  good  authority  for  the 
opinion  that  it  was  acted  as  early  as  1588. 
We  quote  the  summary  of  the  plot: 

"It  is  not  wanting  in  absurdities,  for  the 
play  opens  and  is  connected  with  'Jeronimo' 
by  a  conversation  between  Andrea's  ghost 
and  '  Revenge ' ;  both  remain  continually  on 
the  stage  as  silent,  invisible  spectators,  in 
order,  at  the  end  of  every  act,  to  add  a 
few  words,  in  which  Andrea  laments  over 
the  delay  in  the  revenge  of  his  death  upon 
the   Infanta    Belthazar,  and  '  Revenge'  ad- 


vs.  Shakspere  67 

monishes  him  to  be  patient ;  at  the  end  of  the 
fifth  act  both  return  satisfied  to  the  lower 
regions.  Then  Bellimperia  suddenly  falls 
in  love  with  Horatio,  who  now  steps  into 
Andrea's  place,  and  is  persecuted  by  Lorenzo, 
at  first  without  any  cause  whatever,  and  is 
finally  assassinated.  By  some  means  which 
remain  perfectly  unexplained  and  incom- 
prehensible, Lorenzo  keeps  old  Jeronimo 
from  the  Court,  so  that  he  cannot  bring 
forward  his  accusation  against  the  murderers 
of  his  son.  Jeronimo  is  consequently  seized 
with  madness,  which,  however,  suddenly 
turns  into  a  well  calculated  and  prudent 
action.  The  conclusion  of  the  piece  is  a 
general  massacre,  in  which  Jeronimo,  after 
having  killed  Lorenzo,  bites  off  his  own 
tongue,  stabs  the  Duke  of  Castile,  and  then 
himself  with  a  penknife." 

It  can  hardly  seem  strange  that  the 
critic  should  add:  "This  at  once  explains 
why  no  piece  was  more  generally  ridiculed 
by  contemporary  and  younger  poets,  than 
11  The  Spanish  Tragedy." 


68  Critics 

If  Shakspere  imitated  Kyd  in  "Titus," 
from  such  stuff  as  this,  he  was  surely- 
wise  in  his  "sluggish  avoidance  of  needless 
invention." 

We  are  tempted  to  suggest,  however, 
that  "The  Spanish  Tragedy"  affords  a  rich 
and  ample  field  to  modern  critics  who 
are  solicitous  to  save  the  life  and  work  of 
"the  gentle  William"  from  the  imputation 
of  being  "  superhuman  " :  Is  it  not  clear  that 
"Hamlet"  was  only  an  imitation  of  "The 
Spanish  Tragedy"?  Did  not  Hamlet  have 
a  friend  whose  name  was  Horatio?  Was  not 
Hamlet,  like  Jeronimo,  "essentially  mad," 
and  did  not  his  madness  "turn  into  a  well 
calculated  and  prudent  action"? 

Kyd  was  the  undoubted  author  of  another 
work,  under  the  following  title:  "Pompey 
the  Great,  his  fair  Cornelia's  Tragedie: 
effected  by  her  Father's  and  Husband's 
downe-cast  Death  and  fortune,  written  in 
French  by  that  excellent  Poet,  R.  Gamier, 
and  translated  into  English  by  Thomas  Kyd." 
This  translation  was  printed  in  1595.     The 


vs.  Shakspere  69 

play  is  thus  summarized:  It  is  "a  piece 
which  is  constructed  upon  a  misunderstood 
model  of  the  ancients ;  it  is  altogether  devoid 
of  dramatic  action,  in  reality  merely  lyrics 
and  rhetoric  in  dialogue.  The  whole  of  the 
first  act  consists  of  one  emphatic  jeremiad 
by  Cicero,  about  the  desperate  condition 
of  Rome  as  it  then  was,  its  factiousness,  its 
servility, — a  jeremiad  which  is  continued 
at  the  end  of  the  act,  by  the  chorus,  in 
rhymed  stanzas.  In  this  tone  it  proceeds 
without  a  trace  of  action  through  the  whole 
of  the  succeeding  act,  till  maledictions  and 
outbursts  of  grief  on  the  part  of  Cornelia 
conclude  the  piece  at  the  same  point  at  which 
it  had  commenced." 

It  has  never  been  claimed  that  "Cornelia" 
was  the  model  for  "Titus."  "Cornelia" 
and  "The  Spanish  Tragedy"  are  the  only 
dramas  that  can  be  certainly  called  Kyd's. 
Comparison  between  these,  or  either  of  the 
others  doubtfully  attributed  to  him,  and 
"Titus  Andronicus,"  shows  beyond  question 
that  the  only  similarity  between  the  most 


7°  Critics 

similar  is  that  both  are  "  tragedies  of  blood." 
There  is  no  likeness  of  plot,  characterization, 
action  or  diction.  There  is  in  "Titus"  none 
of  Kyd's  "huffing,  bragging,  puft"  language. 
A  ghost  concludes  "  Jeronimo  "  whose  "  hopes 
have  end  in  their  effects"  "when  blood  and 
sorrow  finish  my  desires,"  "these  were 
spectacles  to  please  my  soul."  In  "  Titus," 
even  the  Satanic  Aaron,  "in  the  whirlwind 
of  passion,"  "acquires  and  begets  a  tem- 
perance" that  "gives  it  smoothness." 

When  Tamora  proposes  crimes  to  her  sons, 
that  fiends  would  refuse  to  execute,  Lavinia 
does  not  shriek,  nor  rant,  nor  call  upon  the 
gods,  but  speaks  what  nobody  but  Shakspere 
could  have  uttered, — 

"O  Tamora!  thou  bear'st  a  woman's  face." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  consider  the  claim 
sometimes  made,  that  Kyd  wrote  an  old 
" Taming  of  the  Shrew"  or  an  old  "  Hamlet." 
"It  is  a  mere  arbitrary  conjecture"  that  he 
was  the  author  of  either. 

There  is  therefore  no  proof  that  Shakspere 


vs.  Shakspere  71 

imitated  Kyd,  and  Professor  Wendell's  as- 
sertion that  "Titus  Andronicus"  is  "much" 
in  his  manner  is  utterly  without  support. 

"The  Comedy  of  Errors"  was  unquestion- 
ably suggested  by  the  "Twins"  of  Plautus. 
Is  it  therefore  an  imitation? 

What  is  literary  imitation?  Did  Dante 
imitate  Virgil  because  Virgil's  ghost  was  the 
guide  through  the  "Inferno"?  Did  Milton 
imitate  Dante  in  "Paradise  Lost"  because 
he  describes  the  same  scenes  in  different 
words  ?  Did  he  imitate  the  author  of  Genesis 
because  he  reproduces  the  Garden  of  Eden  in 
majestic  poetry?  "Paradise  Lost"  seems  to 
Professor  Wendell  "almost  superhuman," 
but  when  any  suggestion  of  transcendent 
power  is  applied  to  Shakspere,  it  assumes 
an  ' '  unnecessary  miracle. ' '  Shakspere,  whom 
ten  generations  of  great  men  have  failed  to 
imitate,  is  in  the  opinion  of  Professor  Wendell 
but  an  imitator,  because  while,  as  he  says, 
"  he  could  not  help  wakening  to  life  the  stiffly 
conventional  characters  which  he  found, 
as  little  more  than  names,  in  the  tales  and 


72  Critics 

the  fictions  he  adapted  for  the  stage,"  he 
wrote  chronicle  plays,  comedies,  romances, 
tragedies,  after  others  had  worked  in  the 
same  fields. 

Milton  was  born  in  1608.  "That  was  the 
year,"  says  Professor  Wendell,  "when  Shak- 
spere  probably  came  to  the  end  of  his  tragic 
period,  and,  with  the  imitativeness  which 
never  forsook  him,  was  about  to  follow 
the  newly  popular  manner  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher." 

But  let  us  turn  to  Professor  Wendell's 
opinion  of  Milton  and  quote  his  language: 
"  With  Milton,  the  case  is  wonderfully 
different.  Read  Scripture,  if  you  will,  and 
then  turn  to  your  'Paradise  Lost.'  Turn 
then  to  whatever  poet  you  chance  to  love 
of  Greek  antiquity  or  of  Roman.  Turn  to 
Dante  himself.  .  .  .  Then  turn  back 
to  Milton.  Different  you  will  find  him,  no 
doubt,  in  the  austere  isolation  of  his  masterful 
and  deliberate  Puritanism  and  learning; 
but  that  difference  does  not  make  him 
irrevocably   lesser.     Rather   you  will   grow 


vs.  Shakspere  73 

more  and  more  to  feel  how  wonderful  his 
power  proves.  Almost  alone  among  poets, 
he  could  take  the  things  for  which  he  had 
need  from  the  masters  themselves,  as  con- 
fidently as  any  of  the  masters  had  taken 
such  matters  from  lesser  men;  and  he  could 
so  place  these  spoils  of  masterpieces  in  his 
own  work  that  they  seem  as  truly  and  as 
admirably  part  of  it  as  they  seemed  of  the 
other  great  works  where  he  found  them." 
"'Paradise  Lost'  transcends  all  traces  of 
its  lesser  origins,  until  those  lesser  origins 
become  a  matter  of  mere  curiosity." 

And  so  it  appears  that  Professer  Wendell 
applies  one  definition  of  the  word  "  imitation" 
to  Shakspere,  another  to  Milton.  If  Shak- 
spere found  chronicle  plays  in  the  theatre, 
and  transformed  them  into  the  most  vivid 
and  truthful  history  ever  written,  "those 
lesser  origins  become  a  matter  of  mere 
curiosity,"  and  the  charge  of  imitation 
fails.  If  the  "Comedy  of  Errors"  is  an 
"imitation"  of  Plautus,  "Paradise  Lost" 
is  an  "imitation"  of  Moses.     If  "Paradise 


74  Critics 

Lost"  is  not  an  "imitation"  but  "something 
utterly  apart,"  "something  almost  super- 
human .  .  in  its  grand  solitude";  if 
Milton  has  "so  placed  the  spoils  of  master- 
pieces in  his  own  work  that  they  seem 
truly  and  admirably  a  part  of  it,"  then 
"  Love's  Labour  's  Lost "  is  not  an  "imitation" 
of  Lilly,  nor  "  Henry  VI."  of  Greene  or  Peele 
or  Marlowe,  nor  "  Titus  Andronicus  "  of  Kyd. 

But  this  indictment  against  Shakspere 
is  made  more  definite  in  form,  and  may 
therefore  be  more  conclusively  answered. 
This  is  the  charge  as  stated  by  Professor 
Wendell: 

"A  young  American  scholar  whose  name 
has  hardly  yet  crossed  the  Atlantic, — Pro- 
fessor Ashley  Horace  Thorndike, — has  lately 
made  some  studies  in  dramatic  chronology 
which  go  far  to  confirm  the  unromantic 
conjecture  that  to  the  end  Shakspere  re- 
mained imitative  and  little  else.  Professor 
Thorndike,  for  example,  has  shown  with 
convincing  probability  that  certain  old  plays 
concerning    Robin    Hood    proved    popular; 


vs.  Shakspere  75 

a  little  later,  Shakspere  produced  the  woods 
and  outlaws  of  'As  You  Like  It.'  The 
question  is  one  of  pure  chronology ;  and  pure 
chronology  has  convinced  me,  for  one,  that 
the  forest  scenes  of  Arden  were  written  to 
fit  available  costumes  and  properties.  .  .  . 
Again,  Professor  Thorndike  has  shown  that 
Roman  subjects  grew  popular,  and  tragedies 
of  revenge  such  as  Mars  ton's ;  a  little  later, 
Shakspere  wrote  'Julius  Caesar'  and  'Ham- 
let.' With  much  more  elaboration  Profes- 
sor Thorndike  has  virtually  proved  that  the 
romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher — dif- 
ferent both  in  motive  and  in  style  from 
any  popular  plays  which  had  preceded 
them — we're  conspicuously  successful  on  the 
London  stage  before  Shakspere  began  to 
write  romances.  It  seems  likely,  therefore, 
that  'Cymbeline, '  which  less  careful  chro- 
nology had  conjectured  to  be  a  model  for 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  was  in  fact  imitated 
from  models  which  they  had  made.  In 
other  words,  Professor  Thorndike  has  shown 
that  one  may  account  for  all  the  changes 


76  Critics 

in  Shakspere,  after  1600,  by  merely  assuming 
that  the  most  skilful  and  instinctive  imitator 
among  the  early  Elizabethan  dramatists,  re- 
mained to  the  end  an  instinctively  imitative 
follower  of  fashions  set  by  others." 

Again,  he  says:  "The  likeness  of  their 
work  to  the  romances  of  Shakspere — in 
subject,  in  structure,  in  peculiarities  of  verse, 
— has  been  often  remarked;  and  they  have 
consequently  been  supposed  to  have  begun 
by  skilful  superficial  imitation  of  his  spirit- 
ually ripest  phase.  The  question  is  one  of 
chronology  not  yet  fixed  in  detail;  but  as  I 
have  told  you  already,  the  studies  of  my 
friend  Professor  Thorndike  have  virtually 
proved  that  several  of  their  plays  must  have 
been  in  existence  decidedly  before  the  dates 
commonly  assigned  to  'Cymbeline, '  the 
'Tempest'  or  the  'Winter's  Tale.'  If  he 
is  right, — and  I  believe  him  so, — the  relation 
commonly  thought  to  have  existed  between 
them  and  Shakspere  is  precisely  reversed. 
Shakspere  was  the  imitator,  not  they; 
indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  he  was  from  the 


vs.  Shakspere  77 

beginning  an  imitator,  not  an  inventor. 
And  here  his  imitations  are  not  in  all  respects 
better  than  his  models." 

Here  the  grave  accusation  is  distinctly 
made  that  Shakspere  imitated  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher,  and  to  support  it,  reference  is 
made  to  one  man  only,  Professor  Thorndike, 
his  pupil  and  disciple. 

And  so,  in  this  new  case,  we  have  two 
judges,  and  the  curious  fact  that  the  in- 
structor refers  to  the  student  and  the 
student  to  the  instructor  as  the  sole  authority 
for  the  soundness  of  the  decision. 

The  "Introduction"  of  Professor  Thorn- 
dike  to  his  "Influence  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  on  Shakspere"  sufficiently  shows 
the  animus  of  his  essay:  he  cites  the  libel 
of  Greene,  and  intimates  that  it  is  an  ac- 
cusation of  plagiarism  which  we  have  re- 
jected, but  which  "contains  an  element  of 
truth  worth  keeping  in  mind";  he  repeats 
in  positive  words  the  charge  of  Professor 
Wendell  that  Shakspere  began  by  "  imitating 
or  revamping   the   work   of   others";   that 


78  Critics 

" Titus  Andronicus "  and  "Henry  VI.,"  "so 
far  as  they  are  his,  are  certainly  imitative 
of  other  plays  of  the  time,"  and  adds  that 
"Richard II."  and  "Richard  III."  show  the 
influence  of  Marlowe's  tragedies,  and  "  Love's 
Labour  's  Lost"  of  Lilly's  comedies. 

We  have  sufficiently  answered  as  to  Henry 
VI.,"  "Titus  Andronicus,"  and  "Love's 
Labour  's  Lost."  There  is  no  proof  of- 
fered as  to  the  histories  of  the  two  Richards. 
The  assertion  is  made  without  authority 
or  example,  without  even  the  application 
of  the  usual  "verse-tests"  by  which  author- 
ship is  so  conveniently  determined. 

Having  repeated  the  erroneous  and  un- 
supported statements  of  his  master,  Professor 
Thorndike  announces  that  after  these  early 
"imitations"  little  attention  has  been  given 
to  Shakspere's  subsequent  indebtedness  to 
his  contemporaries,  for  the  reason  that 
"to  most  students  it  has  seemed  absurd," 
while  to  him  it  is  clear  that  "Hamlet"  and 
"Lear"  "contain  traces  of  the  'tragedy 
of  blood  type'";  that  "a  closer  adherence 


vs.  Shakspere  79 

to  current  forms  can  be  seen  in  the  relation 
between  the  'Merchant  of  Venice'  and  the 
'Jew  of  Malta,'  "  "or  in  the  many  points  of 
similarity  between  '  Hamlet '  and  the  .  .  . 
tragedies  dealing  with  the  theme  of  blood 
revenge,"  and  that  "characters  .  .  .  are 
often  clearly  developments  of  types  familiar 
on  the  stage,"  "as  for  example,  Iago  is  a 
development  of  the  conventional  stage  vil- 
lain." He  is  certainly  correct  in  saying 
that  to  most  students  these  assumptions 
"seem  absurd."  Let  us  examine  them 
briefly,  for  the  purpose  of  learning  whether 
they  deserve  any  more  serious  adjective. 
Marlowe's  "Jew  of  Malta"  appeared  about 
1589.  As  the  author  announces  in  the 
prologue,  it  is  based  upon  Machiavel's 
theory  of  life — pure  selfishness.  The  Jew 
makes  war  upon  all  the  world,  for  the 
gratification  of  his  passion  for  revenge; 
he  poisons  his  daughter  "and  the  entire 
nunnery  in  which  she  had  taken  refuge";  he 
kills,  he  betrays,  he  prepares  a  burning 
caldron    for    a    whole    garrison, — "tragedy 


80  Critics 

such  as  this  is  simply  revolting.  The  char- 
acters of  Barabas  and  of  his  servant,  and 
the  motives  by  which  they  are  stimulated, 
are  the  mere  coinage  of  extravagance; 
and  the  effect  is  as  essentially  undramatic 
as  the  personification  is  unreal."  The  con- 
duct of  the  drama  is  in  keeping  with  the 
character  of  this  incomprehensible  monster 
of  vindictiveness ;  he  is  "without  shame 
or  fear,  and  bloodthirsty  even  to  madness." 
His  bad  schemes  are  always  successful; 
but  the  action  proceeds  without  connection, 
the  characters  come  and  go  without  apparent 
cause;  the  three  Jews,  the  monks  and  nuns, 
the  mother  of  Don  Mathias  "appear  and 
disappear  so  unexpectedly,  and  are  inter- 
woven with  the  action  in  so  entirely  an 
external  manner,  that  the  defects  of  the 
composition  are  at  once  apparent." 

If  this  seems  a  good  model  for  Shakspere's 
Shylock,  it  will  seem  impossible,  when  Bar- 
abas  shows  us  his  own  portrait: 

"As  for  myself,  I  walk  abroad  a-nights, 
And  kill  sick  people  groaning  under  walls ; 


vs.  Shakspere  81 

Sometimes  I  go  about  and  poison  wells; 
And  now  and  then,  to  cherish  Christian  thieves 
I  am  content  to  lose  some  of  my  crowns; 
That  I  may,  walking  in  my  gallery, 
See  'em  go  pinion'd  along  by  my  door. 
Being  young,  I  studied  physic,  and  began 
To  practice  first  upon  the  Italian; 
There  I  enriched  the  priest  with  burials, 
And  always  kept  the  sexton's  arms  in  use, 
With  digging  graves  and  ringing  dead  men's 

knells ; 
And  after  that  was  I  an  engineer, 
And  in  the  wars  'twixt  France  and  Germany, 
Under  pretence  of  helping  Charles  the  Fifth, 
Slew  friend  and  enemy  with  my  stratagems. 
And  after  that  was  I  an  usurer, 
And  with  extorting,  cozening,  forfeiting, 
And  tricks  belonging  unto  brokery, 
I  filled  the  jails  with  bankrupts  in  a  year, 
And  with  young  orphans  planted  hospitals,     • 
And  every  moon  made  some  or  other  mad, 
And    now   and    then    one    hung     himself    for 

grief, 

Pinning  upon  his  breast  a  long  great  scroll, 

How  I  with  interest  tormented  him. 

But  mark  how  I  am  bless'd  for  plaguing  them ; 
6 


82  Critics 

I  have  as  much  coin  as  will  buy  the  town. 

But  tell  me  now,  how  hast  thou  spent  thy  time  ? ' ' 

And   the    servant   answers  in    sympathetic 
lines: 

"Faith,  master,  in  setting  Christian  villages  on 

fire, 
Chaining  of  eunuchs,  binding  galley  slaves. 
One  time  I  was  an  ostler  in  an  inn, 
And  in  the  night-time  secretly  would  I  steal 
To   travellers'   chambers,   and   there   cut   their 

throats ; 
Once  at  Jerusalem,  where  the  pilgrims  kneel'd, 
I  strewed  powder  on  the  marble  stones, 
And  therewithal  their  knees  would  rankle  so 
That  I  have  laughed  a-good  to  see  the  cripples 
Go  limping  home  to  Christendom  on  stilts." 

Undoubtedly,  the  "groundlings"  shouted 
with  delight  when  this  fiend  was  plunged 
into  the  boiling  caldron  which  he  had  heated 
for  others.  Barabas  dies,  "in  the  midst  of 
his  crimes,  with  blasphemy  and  cursing  on 
his  lips ;  everything  is  the  same  at  the  end 
as  it  was  from  the  beginning." 


vs.  Shakspere  83 

To  the  unlearned  reader,  there  is  no  "re- 
lation" between  this  wild  drama  and  the 
perfect  art  shown  in  Shakspere's  Jew,  who 
utters  no  curse  when  the  gentle  Portia 
pronounces  sentence,  but  retires  with  dignity 
from  her  court,  because  "he  is  not  well." 

Professor  Thorndike  tells  us  that  the 
"traces"  of  blood  revenge  in  "Hamlet"  and 
"Lear"  have  been  frequently  "remarked." 
What  those  traces  are  we  are  not  informed, 
but  he  assures  us  that  "they  have  not  led 
to  any  careful  investigation  of  Shakspere's 
indebtedness  to  his  contemporaries."  That 
investigation  was  reserved  for  his  research, 
and  we  hope  to  show  how  successfully  he 
has  performed  his  great  task.  Meanwhile, 
we  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  if  "Lear" 
contains  any  "trace"  of  the  tragedy  of 
blood,  it  is  utterly  undiscoverable  to  the 
ordinary  reader,  in  the  action,  character  or 
fate  of  the  victims;  and  as  for  "Hamlet," 
so  far  is  he  from  any  idea  of  blood  revenge, 
that  he  doubts  and  disobeys  the  message 
from  the   other  world,   doubts   indeed   the 


84  Critics 

existence  of  any  other  world,  and  dies  at 
last  not  a  bloody  death,  but  by  a  foil  "un- 
bated  and  envenomed." 

If  Iago  is  but  the  development  of  the 
conventional  stage  villain,  his  origin  and 
some  of  the  missing  links  of  his  evolution 
ought  to  be  shown;  they  have  never  been 
guessed,  and  no  critic  can  produce  a  single 
member  of  his  kindred. 

From  such  premises,  Professor  Thorndike 
concludes  that  "it  is  only  natural  to  expect 
that  the  genius  who  brought  many  of  these 
forms  to  their  highest  perfection  should  not 
have  been  so  much  an  inventor  as  an  adapt- 
er"; "  We  may  naturally  expect, "  he  says, 
"that  Shakspere's  transcendent  plays  owe 
a  considerable  debt  to  the  less  perfect  but 
not  less  original  efforts  of  his  contemporaries." 
This  "natural  expectation"  is  not  disap- 
pointed, in  Professor  Thorndike's  opinion, 
by  a  comparison  between  some  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  plays  and  those  he  calls  the 
"romances"  of  Shakspere, — "Cymbeline," 
"  The  Tempest,"  and  "  Winter's  Tale."    The 


vs.  Shakspere  85 

argument  is  circuitous,  but  must  be  carefully- 
followed  in  order  to  estimate  the  validity 
and  weight  of  the  conclusion. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  assumed  as  probable 
that  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  wrote  "The 
Two  Noble  Kinsmen,"  and  that  Fletcher 
wrote  part  of  "Henry  VIII."  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  this  last  assumption  is  "at  odds 
with  the  weight  of  authority"  and  rests 
mainly,  if  not  wholly,  upon  Spedding's 
essay,  in  1850.  The  only  additional  sug- 
gestion is  the  new  and  original  test,  the 
so-called  "  em- them ' '  test.  A  laborious  table 
is  made,  purporting  to  show  that  in  the 
part  assigned  to  Shakspere  "them"  is  used 
seventeen  times,  '"em"  only  five;  that  in 
the  part  assigned  to  Fletcher  "them"  is 
used  but  four  times,  "'em"  fifty-seven. 
We  are  not  told  from  what  source  this  table 
was  made,  but  "Henry  VIII."  was  first 
published  in  the  folio  of  1623.  Professor 
Thorndike  says  that  later  editions  have 
strictly  followed  it,  and  in  Knight's  edition, 
which  he  certifies   to  be  a  reprint  of  the 


86  Critics 

first  folio,  '"em"  as  a  contraction  for 
"them"  occurs  just  once  and  no  more. 
Thus  far,  then,  the  new  "test"  seems  to 
give  us  no  satisfactory  aid. 

It  may  be  permitted  an  ordinary  reader 
to  wonder  how  any  critic  can  persuade 
himself  that  Fletcher  wrote  the  speech  of 
Wolsey  on  his  downfall,  or  the  prophecy  of 
Cranmer  at  the  christening  of  Elizabeth. 
Why  is  it  not  a  permissible  hypothesis  that 
"  Henry  VIII. "  was  written  during  the 
reign  of  the  great  Queen,  and  subsequently 
revised  by  Shakspere,  after  her  death,  and 
presented  as  a  "new  play,"  as  Wotten  calls 
it? 

The  only  external  evidence  that  Shakspere 
wrote  any  portion  of  "  The  Two  Noble  Kins- 
men' '  is  the  quarto  of  1 634.  On  the  contrary, 
all  the  previous  external  evidence  is  against 
that  guess,  for  it  was  left  out  of  the  First 
Folio,  and  Heminge  &  Condell's  positive 
knowledge  is  certainly  of  more  weight 
than  the  opinion  of  Professor  Thorndike's 
sole   authority,    Mr.    Littledale.     Moreover, 


vs.  Shakspere  87 

the  play  was  not  included  among  Shakspere 's 
works  in  the  folio  of  1632,  and  did  not  appear 
among  them  until,  with  six  other  doubtful 
plays,  the  editions  of  1664  and  1685.  In 
view  of  this  proof,  it  is  admitted  that  the 
question  of  collaboration  is  likely  to  remain 
forever  unsettled,  "because  it  does  not 
admit  of  complete  demonstration."  Never- 
theless, collaboration  is  assumed,  and  the 
"em-them"  test  is  applied  to  the  text  so 
as  to  credit  1034  lines  to  Shakspere,  i486 
to  Fletcher. 

German  critcism  has  taken  up  the  subject 
with  minute  care,  and,  we  may  assert  with 
confidence,  has  settled  beyond  doubt  that 
Shakspere  never  wrote  a  single  line  of 
"The  two  Noble  Kinsmen."  And  it  may 
be  added  with  equal  certainty  that  if  the 
citations  from  that  play  are  correctly  credited 
to  Fletcher,  he  never  wrote  a  line  of  "  Henry 
VIII."  Professor  Thorndike  is  not  con- 
sistent with  himself.  On  one  page  he  calls 
his  theory  conjectural,  on  another,  a  "reason- 
able   conclusion."     The    play    itself    ought 


88  Critics 

to  convince  any  fair  mind  that  Shakspere 
had  no  share  in  it,  for  it  contains  an  obvious 
imitation  of  Ophelia's  madness  in  "  Hamlet," 
which  in  some  points  "is  a  direct  plagiarism." 
But  it  was  important  for  Professor  Thorndike 
to  show  what  he  calls  a  "probability"  that 
Shakspere  and  Fletcher  collaborated,  in 
order  to  establish  his  theory  that  Fletcher 
"  influenced  "  Shakspere.  With  the  vanishing 
of  the  "  probability ' '  the  "  influence ' '  vanishes. 
The  second  step  in  the  argument  is  a 
review  of  the  chronology  of  the  plays  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  among  which  only 
seven  are  immediately  important.  "The 
Woman  Hater,"  licensed  20th  May,  1607, 
published  in  quarto  1607,  as  lately  acted, 
again  in  1648,  and  assigned  to  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher.  Its  first  representation  is 
put  by  Mr.  Fleay  on  April  5th,  1607.  Pro- 
fessor Thorndike  conjectures  that  this  play 
was  produced  in  1606.  "Philaster, "  the 
most  important  in  connection  with  our 
subject,  was  first  published  in  1620.  Mr. 
Fleay  dates  its  composition  in   1611;  Pro- 


vs.  Shakspere  89 

fessor  Thorndike,  in  1608.  The  "  Four  Plays 
in  One"  he  likewise  assigns  conjecturally 
to  the  same  year.  The  fact  is,  it  was  first 
printed  in  the  folio  of  1647,  and  no  authority 
fixes  the  date  of  its  production.  "Thiery 
and  Theodoret"  was  first  published  in  162 1, 
without  giving  the  name  of  any  author. 
The  quarto  of  1648  credits  Fletcher  as 
the  sole  author;  that  of  1649,  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  as  the  joint  authors.  Fleay 
places  the  date  about  161 7;  Oliphant  main- 
tains that  it  was  written  about  1607  or 
1608,  and  afterwards  revised  in  161 7  by 
Fletcher  and  Massinger;  Professor  Thorn- 
dike  ventures  the  guess  that  it  was  written 
in  1607. 

"The  Maid's  Tragedy"  he  places  doubt- 
fully in  1609.  It  was  first  published  in 
1619  without  naming  its  authors.  The 
only  evidence  as  to  its  date  is  that  it  was 
licensed  October  31st,  161 1. 

"Cupid's  Revenge"  was  acted  at  Court  in 
161 2,  and  first  published  in  161 5.  Professor 
Thorndike  thinks  it  was  an  effort  to  repeat 


90  Critics 

the  success  of  "Philaster,"  and  therefore 
assigns  it  to  1609  or  1610. 

"A  King  and  No  King"  he  puts  without 
hesitation  in  the  year  161 1,  and  this  is 
supported  by  authority.  Professor  Thorn- 
dike  remarks  that  this  is  the  only  play 
(of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher),  "acted  before 
1 61 2,  the  year  of  whose  production  is  fixed." 

The  only  reason  for  referring  to  "The 
Woman  Hater  "  is  to  fix  the  date  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  appearance.  There  is  ab- 
solutely no  proof  that  they  were  known 
to  literature  before  that  play  was  licensed 
by  Sir  George  Buc  on  the  20th  May,  1607. 
Yet  Professor  Thorndike,  in  spite  of  this, 
assigns  "The  Woman's  Prize,"  first  printed 
in  1647,  and  first  acted,  so  far  as  the  record 
shows,  November  28th,  1633,  to  the  year  1604. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  of  the  six  other  plays 
referred  to  by  Professor  Thorndike,  and 
claimed  to  have  been  in  existence  before 
the  end  of  161 1,  the  dates  of  all  except 
"  A  King  and  No  King  "  are  only  conjecturally 
given. 


vs.  Shakspere  91 

Compared  with  these,  the  chronology  of 
"Cymbeline,"  "Tempest"  and  "Winter's 
Tale ' '  is  reviewed .  ' '  Cymbeline , ' '  according 
to  Dr.  Simon  Forman's  Diary,  was  acted 
between  April  20th,  1610,  and  May  15th, 
1 611;  it  must  therefore  have  been  written 
before  the  last  named  date.  Mr.  Fleay 
fixes  the  date  in  1609,  Malone  in  1605,  and 
both  Chalmers  and  Drake  substantially 
agree  with  Malone.  Ulrici  assigns  the  date 
of  composition  to  1609  or  1610. 

"The  Tempest,"  according  to  Professor 
Thorndike,  cannot  be  dated  earlier  than 
October  13th,  1610,  nor  later  than  1613, 
and  was  probably  written  and  acted  late  in 
1 6 10  or  early  in  161 1.  Ulrici  agrees  with 
this. 

"The  Winter's  Tale,"  as  appears  by 
Forman's  Diary,  was  acted  May  15,  161 1. 
Ulrici  says :  "  It  is  now  a  matter  of  certainty 
that  it  must  have  been  brought  upon  the 
stage  between  August,  16 10,  and  May, 
161 1."  It  has  been  suggested  with  some 
plausibility  that  this  play  was  an  early  pro- 


92  Critics 

duction  by  Shakspere  which  he  remodelled. 
A  play  called  "A  Winternyght's  Pastime" 
is  entered  at  Stationer's  Hall  as  early  as 
1594.  Professor  Thorndike  fixes  the  date 
between  January  1st  and  May  15th,  161 1 
and  assumes  that  the  drama  is  imitated  from 
Jonson's  "Masque  of  Oberon."  He  suggests 
that  as  in  the  "Masque"  the  chariot  of 
Oberon  is  drawn  by  two  white  bears, 
"  perhaps  here,  as  in  the  dance,  costume  and 
actor  reappeared  in  the  play,  in  the  bear  who 
chases  Antigonus."  Anything  to  show  that 
Shakspere  imitated  anybody. 

The  argument  is  based  upon  this  chro- 
nology and  the  alleged  similarity  between  the 
enumerated  dramas;  the  issue  is  made  upon 
the  respective  dates  of  Beaumont  and  Fletch- 
er's "Philaster"  and  Shakspere's  "Cymbe- 
line."  There  is  no  claim  that  Shakspere 
imitated  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  was 
influenced  by  them,  except  in  his  three 
"romances,"  and  of  these,  "Cymbeline" 
is  placed  first.  Professor  Thorndike  under- 
takes to  prove  that  "Philaster"  was  written 


vs.  Shakspere  93 

before  October  8th,    1610,   and  this  is  his 
reasoning : 

"  In  the  '  Scourge  of  Folly '  by  John  Davies 
of  Hertford,  entered  in  the  Stationer's 
Register  October  8  th,  16 10,  occurs  an 
epigram  referring  to  this  play."  Let  us 
examine  this  statement  first.  On  the  next 
page  he  says:  "The  'Scourge  of  Folly' 
furnishes  no  further  clue  in  regard  to  the 
date  of  the  epigram."  On  page  59  of  the 
same  essay,  referring  to  another  play,  "  Don 
Quixote,"  the  statement  is  made  that  it 
was  "entered  S.  R.  161 1  and  printed  161 2." 
The  entry  was  therefore  in  the  nature  of  a 
"license  to  print."  It  is  clear  that  in  this 
instance  the  actual  printing  or  publication 
was  after  the  entry.  The  same  rule  must 
apply  to  other  plays  of  the  same  period. 
The  date  of  entry  affords  no  proof  whatever 
of  the  date  of  publication  or  of  presentation. 
Therefore  the  date  of  the  entry  of  "The 
Scourge  of  Folly,"  October  8th,  1610,  as 
Professor  Thorndike  states,  "affords  no 
clue   in   regard    to    the   date"  of    Davies 's 


94  Critics 

"  epigram."  The  "  epigram  "  may  have  been 
written  long  after  the  entry  in  the  Stationer's 
Register,  and  probably  was,  because  it  is 
not  to  be  assumed  that  the  "epigram" 
appeared  in  the  entry  of  the  play,  and 
Davies  cannot  be  assumed  to  have  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  "Philaster" 
until  it  appeared  upon  the  stage,  a  date 
entirely  uncertain. 

Further,  Professor  Thorndike  says :  "  There 
is  no  reason  why  'Philaster'  may  not 
have  been  produced  before  Burbage  took 
up  the  Blackfriar's  lease  in  1608.  There 
is  in  fact  no  early  limit  that  can  be  set  for 
the  date;  the  final  limit  is  of  course  fixed 
by  Davies'  epigram."  Of  what  value  is  the 
final  limit  "fixed  by  the  epigram "  when  there 
is  no  proof  of  the  date  of  that?  What 
ground  is  there,  beyond  mere  arbitrary 
assumption,  for  assigning  "Philaster"  to 
1608?  That  play  was  not  printed  till  1620. 
Mr.  Fleay,  Professor  Thorndike's  constant 
authority,  says  it  was  written  in  161 1, 
after    "Cymbeline"    was   upon    the    stage. 


vs.  Shakspere  95 

There  is  absolutely  no  proof,  therefore,  that 
"Philaster"  was  written  before  October  8th, 
1610,  no  proof  when  it  was  entered,  licensed 
or  first  acted ;  and  so  it  is  clear,  as  Professor 
Thorndike  says,  that  "the  date,  1608, 
adopted  by  Dyce,  Leonhardt,  and  Macaulay, 
is  no  more  than  a  conjecture."  On  the 
other  hand,  as  we  have  shown,  the  external 
evidence  is  conclusive  that "  Cymbeline"  was 
upon  the  bills  before  May  15th,  161 1,  and 
therefore  the  argument  that  "Philaster" 
preceded  "Cymbeline"  finds  no  better  sup- 
port than  the  opinion  of  Dyce,  Leonhardt, 
and  Macaulay.     It  is  mere  conjecture. 

Professor  Thorndike  expressly  admits  that 
of  the  six  plays  which  are  claimed  as  "ro- 
mances," "A  King  and  No  King"  "is  the 
only  one  acted  before  161 2  the  year  of  whose 
production  is  fixed,"  but  he  states  without 
qualification  that  "Winter's  Tale"  and  the 
"Tempest"  were  not  acted  until  after 
"Philaster."  As  we  have  seen,  "Winter's 
Tale"  was  acted  May  15th,  161 1,  and  Professor 
Thorndike  himself  says  that  "  'The  Tempest' 


96  Critics 

was  probably  written  and  acted  late  in  1610 
or  early  in  1611";  "Cupid's  Revenge"  "was 
acted  the  Sunday  following  New  Year's  1612  ; 
'A  King  and  No  King'  in  December,  161 1." 
These  are  the  only  two  of  the  six  of  which 
the  date  of  acting  is  given.  Nowhere  does 
Professor  Thorndike  pretend  to  give  any  date 
whatever  when  "Philaster"  was  acted;  the 
only  question  discussed  is  as  to  the  year 
of  authorship,  and  that  is  left  uncertain. 
The  statement  that  "Winter's  Tale"  and 
"The  Tempest"  were  "not  acted  until 
after  ' Philaster'"  is  utterly  without  warrant 
or  authority.  If  Shakspere  is  to  be  ad- 
judged the  "imitator"  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  the  judgment  must  rest  upon  facts 
or  inference  from  facts,  and  not  upon  the 
unsupported  opinion  of  Professor  Wendell's 
pupil. 

Professor  Thorndike  in  fact  admits  that 
"we  cannot  be  certain  about  the  date  of  'Cym- 
beline,'  "  but  yet  assumes  that  "Philaster" 
preceded  it,  both  in  date  of  production  and 
public   appearance,   and   proceeds   to   draw 


vs.  Shakspere  97 

a  long  parallel  between  the  "romances"  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  those  of  Shak- 
spere, for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the 
"romance"  or  the  heroic  "romance"  was 
a  new  style  of  drama,  "created"  by  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  and  probably  adapted 
and  improved  by  Shakspere. 

Whether  there  is  any  difference  in  defini- 
tion between  the  "romance"  and  the  "heroic 
romance"  seems  immaterial,  since  Professor 
Thorndike  uses  one  term  as  synonymous 
with  the  other.  He  gives  "the  most  no- 
ticeable characteristics  of  the  romances": 
"A  mixture  of  tragic  and  idyllic  events, 
a  series  of  highly  improbable  events,  heroic 
and  sentimental  characters,  foreign  scenes, 
happy  denouements."  This  definition  is 
elaborated  in  connection  with  the  "  romances" 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher: 

ist.  They  took  the  plots  from  any 
source. 

2nd.  The  plots  are  ingenious  and  im- 
probable. 

3rd.    The  plots  lack  realism. 


98  Critics 

4th.  The  plots  deal  with  heroic  persons 
and  actions. 

5th.     The  characters  are  not  historical. 

6th.  The  plays  are  located  far  off,  for 
example,  in  Milan,  Athens,  Messina,  Lisbon. 

7  th.  The  action  has  little  to  do  with  the 
real  life  of  any  historic  period,  but  with 
"romance." 

8th.  The  story  is  of  sentimental  love, 
as  contrasted  with  gross,  sensual  passion. 

9th.     There  is  variety  of  emotional  effect. 

10th.  There  is  always  a  happy  denouement. 

All  these  elements  of  the  definition  are 
applied  to  "Cymbeline,"  "The  Tempest" 
and  "Winter's  Tale,"  and  it  is  maintained 
that  none  of  Shakspere's  previous  dramas 
present  the  same  features.  This  is  a  con- 
venient method  of  showing  that  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  "created  the  romantic  drama" 
and  that  Shakspere  was  "influenced"  in 
writing  "Cymbeline"  by  "Philaster,"  but 
it  is  not  criticism ;  it  is  rather  an  attempt  to 
"create"  a  definition  and  apply  it  to 
"  Philaster, "  and  then  to  deny  its  application 


vs.  Shakspere  99 

to  "  Midsummer  Night's  Dream, "  "  Much  Ado 
About  Nothing,"  "The  Merchant  of  Ven- 
ice," "Twelfth  Night"  or  "Measure  for 
Measure." 

Why  does  Professor  Wendell  call  the 
"Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona"  a  "roman- 
tic comedy,"  if  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
"created"  the  type  which  Professor  Thorn- 
dike  pronounces  "romance"?  He  deliber- 
ately classifies  "Much  Ado"  and  "Twelfth 
Night"  as  "romantic  comedies."  Is  not 
"Philaster"  a  "  romantic  comedy  "  ?  Then, 
as  "Much  Ado"  was  probably  written  in 
1599,  "Twelfth  Night"  in  1598,  when 
Beaumont  was  twelve  or  thirteen  and 
Fletcher  twenty- two  or  twenty-three,  it 
seems  quite  "probable"  that  they  were 
"influenced"  in  writing  their  "romances" 
by  Shakspere.  If  there  is  any  fundamental 
difference  between  "romantic  comedy"  and 
"romance,"  what  is  it?  This  is  a  difficult 
question,  which  Professor  Thorndike  has 
attempted  but  failed  to  answer.  He  admits 
that     "Philaster"    has    some    generic    re- 


ioo  Critics 

semblance  to  "Measure  for  Measure,"  but 
says  that  "No  one  would  think  of  finding 
close  resemblance  between  it  and  anyone 
of  the  'romances.'"  If  the  resemblance 
is  generic,  does  it  matter  whether  it  is 
"close"?  If  "Measure  for  Measure"  falls 
within  the  laborious  definition  of  a  "ro- 
mance," or  of  a  "tragi-comedy,"  as  both 
that  play  and  "  Philaster  "  are  called,  why 
should  n't  we  think  of  "  Measure  for  Measure," 
produced  in  1604,  four  years  before  the 
wildest  conjecture  puts  the  date  of  "Philas- 
ter," as  the  model  upon  which  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  built? 

"Measure  for  Measure"  answers  every 
detail  of  the  definition :  the  plot  is  taken  from 
"Promos  and  Cassandra";  it  is  ingenious 
and  improbable,  lacks  realism,  deals  with 
heroic  persons  and  actions,  a  sovereign 
duke  and  his  rascal  brother;  the  characters 
are  not  historical;  the  location  is  far  off; 
the  action  has  little  to  do  with  the  real  life 
of  any  historical  period;  the  story  involves 
sentimental    love,    as    distinctly  contrasted 


vs.  Shakspere  101 

with  sensual  passion;  there  is  variety  of 
emotional  effect;  the  denouement  is  happy. 
If  therefore  the  definition  of  "romance"  is 
correct,  "Measure  for  Measure"  is  as  much 
of  that  type  as  "Philaster";  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  did  not  "create"  it,  and  there  is 
no  reason  for  supposing  that  Shakspere 
imitated  them  in  "Cymbeline, "  "Tempest," 
or  "Winter's  Tale." 

But  certain  traits  of  construction  are 
named  as  peculiar  to  the  six  "romances"  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  those  of  Shak- 
spere, and  it  is  sought  to  show  that  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  set  the  fashion  in  these 
also. 

ist.     They  did  not  observe  the  unities. 

2nd.  They  disregarded  the  chronicle 
method. 

3rd.    They  left  out  battles  and  armies. 

4th.  They  presented  a  series  of  contrasted 
and  interesting  situations  leading  up  to  a 
startling  climax. 

5th.     The  by-plots  assist  the  main  action. 

6th.     There  is  the  use  of  tragi-comedy. 


102  Critics 

Does  any  attentive  reader  of  Shakspere 's 
comedies,  whether  called  romantic  or  tragi- 
comic, or  by  whatever  other  name,  need  to 
be  told  that  many  of  them  contain  all  these 
traits?  General  review  is  impossible,  but 
take  "The  Merchant  of  Venice"  as  an 
illustration : 

The  unities  are  not  observed.  We  think 
it  is  generally  thought  that  Shakspere  was 
in  the  habit  of  disregarding  them.  The 
chronicle  method  is  ignored.  We  are  not 
aware  that  Shakspere  ever  followed  it 
except  in  writing  historical  plays.  Battles 
and  armies  are  left  out.  This  comedy,  like 
others  by  the  same  cunning  hand,  presents 
a  series  of  contrasted  and  interesting  situa- 
tions leading  up  to  a  startling  climax. 
Need  we  call  to  mind  the  rash  contract  of 
the  merchant,  and  its  almost  tragic  result, 
the  game  of  the  caskets,  the  trial  and  defeat 
of  the  clamorous  Shylock  ?  The  by-plot 
assists  the  main  action,  else  why  does 
Jessica  keep  house  for  Portia  while  she  goes 
to   play    "A   Daniel   come   to   judgment"? 


vs.  Shakspere  103 

There  is  the  use  of  tragi-comedy  in  the  ruin 
of  the  merchant,  in  the  whetting  of  the 
Jew's  knife  for  the  heart  of  his  assured 
victim.  If  these  "traits"  characterize  the 
"romances"  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
they  are  possibly  more  likely  to  have  been  the 
"  imitators, "  because  "  Shylock"  was  created 
in  1596  or  1597,  some  years  before  "Philas- 
ter"  was  exhibited  as  a  stage  decoration. 

It  is  urged  further  that  in  the  "  romances  " 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  "the  characters 
are  not  individuals,  but  types,"  and  that 
those  types  are  repeated  until  they  became 
conventionalized.  There  is  always  a  very 
bad  and  a  very  good  woman,  a  very  generous 
and  noble  man  and  one  so  bad  as  to  seem  a 
monster.  There  is  the  type  of  the  "  love-lorn 
maiden,"  of  "the  lily-livered"  hero,  of  the 
faithful  friend,  of  the  poltroon.  It  is  sup- 
posed by  many  that  such  types  repeated 
in  play  after  play  do  not  mark  the  highest 
original  power,  but  rather  poverty  of  in- 
vention, weak  and  shadowy  conception,  in- 
distinctness of  coloring.    Professor  Thorndike, 


104  Critics 

however,  cannot  too  much  commend  this 
style,  because  it  gives  such  wide  scope  for 
intense  passion,  startling  situation,  and  suc- 
cessful stage  effect,  and  proceeds  to  seek 
for  similar  types  in  Shakspere's  "romances" 
as  further  proof  that  he  "imitated"  "Phil- 
aster."  In  his  view,  the  characters  show 
"  surprising  loss  of  individuality."  Imogen's 
character  "fails  to  supply  really  individual 
traits";  " Perdita  and  Miranda  have  even 
less  marks  of  individuality  than  Imogen." 
They  are  like  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
heroines  who  appear  in  the  same  stage 
costumes,  wearing  the  same  masks,  differing 
only  in  stage  postures  and  dialogue.  More 
than  this :  Professor  Thorndike  would  reduce 
the  "creations"  of  Viola  and  Rosalynd  to 
the  conventional  type  of  the  "love-lorn" 
maiden,  to  mere  adaptations  for  the  stage, 
because  they  dressed  in  boy's  clothes;  of 
Perdita,  to  an  "imitation"  of  Lady  Amelia 
in  "Palamon  and  Arcyte"  because  she 
gathered  flowers  prettily  and  was  commended 
by   the   Queen.     He   makes   the   surprising 


vs.  Shakspere  105 

statement  that  the  three  heroines  in  "Cym- 
beline,"  the  "Tempest"  and  "Winter's 
Tale"  have  on  the  stage  "few  qualities  to 
distinguish  them  from  almost  any  of  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher's."  It  is  difficult  to 
discuss  such  generalizations  with  the  tem- 
perance of  criticism.  They  can  be  true  only 
if  Professor  Thorndike's  theory  is  correct, — 
that  the  delineation  of  character  is  solely 
for  stage  effect.  There  is  another  theory 
announced  and  recorded  by  Shakspere  him- 
self, and  illustrated  in  every  drama  he  wrote, 
— that  the  sole  end  and  aim  of  the  stage 
itself  and  of  the  characters  it  represents, 
is  "to  hold  the  mirror  up  to  nature,"  and 
therefore  his  characters  are  not  "types"; 
they  are  men  and  women  who  were  born, 
not  manufactured;  each  is  a  separate,  in- 
dividual human  being;  each  different  from 
every  other.  We  know  them,  for  they 
have  entered  our  houses,  sat  at  our  tables, 
talked  with  us,  laughed  and  wept  with  us, 
made  us  shudder  at  crime  and  exult  in  the 
triumph  of  virtue. 


106  Critics 

Therefore,  there  is  but  one  "Lear":  his 
madness  was  never  imitated  outside  of 
Bedlam;  but  one  Lady  Macbeth,  and  we 
have  seen  her  walking  in  her  awful  dream. 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  six  romances 
delineate  "love-lorn  maidens,"  "conven- 
tionalized types,  "  who  differ  little  from  each 
other,  except  that  three  of  them  "mas- 
querade in  boy's  clothing"  and  three  do 
not.  They  have  "little  individuality,"  "are 
utterly  romantic,"  "utterly  removed  from 
life";  all  are  presented  to  produce  novel 
situations  leading  up  to  a  startling  climax. 

Imogen  is  not  like  Miranda  or  Perdita; 
neither  is  a  "type"  of  the  "love-lorn" 
maiden;  all  are  living,  acting  individuals, 
differing  from  each  other  like  those  we  know, 
resembling  each  other  only  as  one  beautiful 
and  pure  woman  resembles  another.  Pro- 
fessor Thorndike,  who  is  the  advocate  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  may  keep  his 
personal  opinion  that  Imogen  lacks  "in- 
dividual traits,"  but  we  respectfully  decline 
to  take  his  opinion  as  a  critic  that  she  is 


vs.  Shakspere  107 

like  Arethusa  in  "Philaster."  For  us  and 
for  all  men  and  women,  Shakspere  has 
created  the  character  of  Imogen,  as  of 
Perdita  and  Miranda,  and  her  "individual 
traits"  are  clear  enough,  to  those  who  have 
had  the  happiness  of  her  acquaintance,  to 
show  that  neither  in  feature  or  dress,  neither 
in  manners  or  morals,  did  she  "imitate"  any 
of  the  heroines  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 
But  even  as  a  critic  we  must  differ  from 
Professor  Thorndike ;  he  accuses  Miranda  of 
unpardonable  indelicacy,  and  says  she  "  pro- 
posed" to  Ferdinand!  He  gives  her  language 
from  "Tempest,"  and  remarks  with  satisfac- 
tion that  it  sounds  "very  much  like  one  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  heroines, "  meaning 
of  course  Arethusa,  and  so  draws  the  obvious 
conclusion  that  Shakspere  in  this  remarkable 
instance  clearly  "imitated"  the  "creators" 
of  the  "heroic  romantic  drama."  The  diffi- 
culty with  this  statement  first  of  all  is,  that 
it  is  not  true:  Miranda  does  not  "propose" 
to  Ferdinand;  before  her  sweet  confession 
of  love,  Ferdinand  had  given  all  lovers  the 


108  Critics 

best  form  of  proposal  ever  spoken,  in  this 
language : 

"I, 
Beyond  all  limit  of  what  else  i'  the  world, 
Do  love,  prize,  honor  you." 

Arethusa  does  "propose"  to  Philaster, 
and  therefore  her  "proposal"  does  not 
"sound  very  much  like"  the  proposal  in 
"  Tempest, "  or,  if  it  does,  it  tends  strongly  to 
show  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  attempted 
an  "imitation"  from  "The  Tempest."  Pro- 
fessor Thorndike  the  critic  has  here  been 
misled  by  his  zeal  as  the  partisan :  is  n't  it 
just  possible  that  the  like  zeal  has  misled 
him  in  the  conclusion  that  "Cymbeline" 
was  an  imitation  of  "Philaster"? 

The  second  class  of  "types,"  as  shown  by 
the  dramas  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  is  the 
"evil  woman" — Evadne  in  the  "Maid's 
Tragedy,"  Bacha  in  "Cupid's  Revenge," 
Megra  in  "Philaster,"  Brunhalt  in  "Thierry 
and  Theodoret"  and  Arane  in  "A  King  and 
No  King."  Professor  Thorndike  says  that 
"four  of   them   brazenly  confess   adultery, 


vs.  Shakspere  109 

and  four  attempt  murder,"  and  that  "the 
resemblance.  .  .  is  unmistakable  .  .  . 
and  on  the  stage  even  more  than  in  print" 
these  characters  "must  have  seemed  to  all 
intents  identical." 

The  only  parallel  to  this  in  Shakspere 's 
"romances,"  as  drawn  by  Professor  Thorn- 
dike,  is  that  the  "wicked  Queen  in  <Cymbeline, 
is  very  like  the  wicked  queens  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher,"  and  that  "there  are  other 
characters  .  .  .  who  show  resemblances 
to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  stock  types." 
What  the  resemblances  are  we  are  not  told, 
and  we  need  not  inquire  until  we  learn  which 
"  type  "  is  the  original,  which  the  "  imitation." 
Meanwhile,  we  may  rest  upon  the  fact  that, 
so  far  as  queens  are  concerned,  there  is  no 
"stock  type"  in  Shakspere;  they  differ  from 
each  other  as  widely  as  Hamlet's  mother 
from  Imogen's  mother-in-law.  If  any  of 
them  resemble  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
queens,  it  is  clear  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  were  the  "  imitators, "  not  Shakspere. 

Further  similarities  are  suggested  between 


1 10  Critics 

the  "  type  "  of  the  "  faithful  friend  "  as  shown 
in  five  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  "ro- 
mances" and  Gonzalo  in  "Tempest,"  Ca- 
millo  in  "Winter's  Tale,"  and  Pisanio  in 
' '  Cymbeline . ' '  The  ' '  lily-livered  heroes ' '  and 
the  "poltroons"  are  left  out  of  the  laborious 
comparison,  perhaps  because  none  of  either 
can  be  found  in  Shakspere  sufficiently  like 
the  original  types  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 
The  examples  of  the  "faithful  friend"  are 
not  happy.  For  Gonzalo  sets  Prospero  adrift 
in  a  crazy  boat  and  Camillo  betrays  one 
patron  to  save  another. 

Still  following  the  assumption  that  "  Phil- 
aster"  was  earlier  than  "Cymbeline,"  we 
find  Professor  Thorndike  asserting  that 
"Cymbeline"  "shows  a  puzzling  decadence" 
in  style,  "an  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
double  endings,"  "a  constant  deliberate 
effort  to  conceal  the  metre";  "the  verse 
constantly  borders  on  prose";  "Shakspere's 
structure  in  general  is  like  Fletcher's,  par- 
ticularly in  the  use  of  parentheses  and  con- 
tracted forms  for  'it  is,'   'he  is,'   'I  will.'" 


vs.  Shakspere  in 

There  is  a  "  loss  of  mastery  "  in  "  Cymbeline," 
"an  apparently  conscious  and  not  quite 
successful  struggle  to  overcome  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  new  structure."  An  apologetic 
phrase  that  all  this  does  not  impute  any 
"direct  imitation"  of  Fletcher  does  not  re- 
deem it  from  the  imputation  that  Shakspere 
was  not  content  with  copying  Fletcher's 
plot,  characters,  situations,  but  he  deliber- 
ately departed,  when  "Philaster"  met  his 
eye,  from  the  methods  he  had  used  for  more 
than  twenty  years,  and  carefully  copied  the 
mannerisms  of  a  contemporary  who,  ac- 
cording to  established  chronology,  had  been 
known  to  the  public  hardly  three  years. 
The  merits  of  the  charge,  whether  of  direct 
or  indirect  imitation,  must  be  determined 
solely  by  the  priority  in  date  of  the  two 
plays.  Meanwhile,  the  critic's  argument 
would  have  more  force  if  he  had  told  us  how 
"Cymbeline"  shows  a  "puzzling  decadence," 
how  "the  structure  is  like  Fletcher's,"  how 
the  struggle  to  overcome  the  difficulty  of 
its  novelty  appears.     As  the  argument  stands 


1 1 2  Critics 

it  reminds  one  of  Lowell's  remark  in  relation 
to  this  style  of  criticism:  "Scarce  one  but 
was  satisfied  that  his  ten  finger  tips  were  a 
sufficient  key  to  those  astronomic  wonders 
of  poise  and  counterpoise  ....  in 
his  metres;  scarce  one  but  thought 
he  could  gauge  like  an  ale-firkin  that 
intuition  whose  edging  shallows  may 
have  been  sounded,  but  whose  abysses, 
stretching  down  amid  the  sunless  roots 
of  Being  and  Consciousness,  mock  the 
plummet." 

Professor  Thorndike  takes  the  further 
point,  in  his  review  of  the  Drama  from  1 60 1 
to  161 1,  that  during  that  period  "There  are 
almost  no  romantic  tragi  -comedies " ;  that 
in  fact,  including  "Measure  for  Measure," 
there  are  only  five  which  offer  the  slightest 
generic  resemblance  to  the  heroic  tragi- 
comedies like  "Philaster"  and  "Winter's 
Tale";  that  when  "Philaster"  appeared, 
there  had  been  "no  play  for  seven  or  eight 
years  at  all  resembling  it";  and  draws  the 
conclusion  that  Shakspere,   who  had  been 


vs.  Shakspere  113 

writing  "  gloomy  tragedies  "  for  several  years, 
suddenly  left  that  style  and  wrote  "Cym- 
beline"  in  imitation  of  "  Philaster, "  because 
"Philaster"  had  "filled  the  audience  with 
surprise  and  delight. ' '  The  uncomplimentary 
and  uncritical  remark  is  added  that  perhaps 
"Timon"  and  "Coriolanus"  had  not  achieved 
great  success  on  the  stage — at  any  rate 
the  success  of  "Philaster"  aroused  his 
interest. 

"Timon"  is  assigned  by  most  critics  to 
the  last  of  Shakspere 's  life,  by  many  to  the 
year  161 2.  "Cymbeline, "  as  we  have  seen, 
was  acted  before  May  15th,  161 1;  it  is 
therefore  difficult  to  understand,  if  the  date 
assigned  to  "Timon"  is  correct,  how  its 
failure  could  have  "influenced"  the  produc- 
tion of  "Cymbeline." 

But  Professor  Thorndike's  statement  is  in- 
correct. During  the  decade  named,  "  Meas- 
ure for  Measure"  was  acted  at  Court  in 
1604;  his  conjectural  date  of  "Philaster" 
is  1608.  As  we  have  shown,  "Measure  for 
Measure"    fully    answers    his    definition    of 


ii4  Critics 

the  "romance"  or  "heroic  tragi-comedy, " 
and  he  admits  that  it  bears  a  generic  re- 
semblance to  "Philaster."  His  statement 
that  for  seven  or  eight  years  before  "  Phil- 
aster"  "no  play  had  appeared  at  all  resem- 
bling it"  is  therefore  without  support,  and 
contradicts  his  own  admission.  He  assumes 
much  more,  and  to  support  his  conclusion 
argues  that  "Philaster"  was  perhaps  pro- 
duced before  1608.  The  importance  of  the 
point  justifies  deliberate  attention.  Against 
the  opinion  of  most  scholars,  against  the 
express  statement  of  Dry  den,  he  assigns 
"  Pericles  "  to  the  year  1608 ;  credits  Shakspere 
with  the  authorship  of  the  "Marina  story;" 
admits  that  "the  plot  is  .  .  .  like  those 
of  the  romances,  and  particularly  like  that 
of  the  'Winter's  Tale,'  in  dealing  with  a 
long  series  of  tragic  events  leading  to  a 
happy  ending,"  but  endeavors  to  escape  the 
inevitable  conclusion,  by  the  statement, 
utterly  inconsistent  with  his  own  chro- 
nology, that,  "if  the  play  was  as  late  as 
1608,  there   is  a   possibility   of   Beaumont 


vs.  Shakspere  115 

and    Fletcher's    influence    just    as    in    the 
romances." 

"Pericles"  contains  a  sentimental  love 
story,  the  plot  is  like  that  of  the  "  romances, " 
the  variety  of  the  emotional  effects  is  similar, 
and  there  is  a  contrast  of  tragic  and  idyllic 
elements.  The  play  is  founded  upon  a 
"romantic  story."  All  this  is  admitted, 
but  Professor  Thorndike  thinks  the  love 
story  is  not  sufficiently  prominent,  the 
idyllic  elements  are  not  treated  as  in  the 
romances,  and  Marina  is  therefore  not  like 
any  of  the  heroines  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
but,  while  "something  like  Portia,  more  like 
Isabella. ' '  And  so  ' '  Pericles ' '  is  distinguished 
from  the  romances  because  the  "treatment" 
is  "different,"  and  finally,  because  Professor 
Thorndike  is  committed  to  the  theory  that 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  "created"  a  new 
type  of  drama,  he  asserts  that  " '  Pericles '  is 
doubtless  earlier  than  Shakspere's  romances, 
but  there  is  no  probability  that  it  preceded  all 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's."  Dryden  in 
his   Prologue  to  Davenant's   "Circe"  says: 


n6  Critics 

"Shakspere's  own  muse  his  Pericles  first 
bore,  "  and  the  great  weight  of  opinion  is  that 
it  was  a  very  early  production.  The  "  Story 
of  Marina"  is  as  romantic  as  "Cymbeline," 
and  is  of  the  same  "type"  as  "Philaster," 
and  therefore,  if  Dryden  is  right,  there  is  a 
strong  probability  that  "Pericles"  preceded 
all  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances, 
and  that  in  "Cymbeline"  Shakspere  did  not 
imitate  them. 

We  come  at  last  to  the  end  of  the  argument. 
Professor  Thorndike,  premising  that  the 
historical  portion  of  "Cymbeline"  and  the 
exile  of  Posthumous  have  no  parallels  in 
"  Philaster, "  institutes  a  detailed  comparison 
between  the  plots,  characters,  and  com- 
position of  the  two  plays,  and  shows  that  they 
are  so  strikingly  similar  as  to  justify  the 
positive  conclusion  that  "Shakspere  in- 
fluenced Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  that  they 
influenced  him."  We  may  admit  more 
than  this:  If  "Cymbeline"  followed  "Phil- 
aster," he  was  not  only  influenced  by  them, 
he  not  only  imitated  them,  he  was  a  plagia- 


vs.  Shakspere  117 

rist ;  and  no  apologetic  words  that,  upon  the 
assumption  stated,  "Cynibeline"  did  not 
owe  a  very  large  share  of  its  total  effect 
to  "Philaster, "  can  make  less  the  gravity 
of  the  charge,  and  if  the  assumption  is 
groundless  or  even  probably  groundless, 
no  excuse  remains  to  the  critic  who  makes 
it. 

Let  us  see:  After  all  his  learned  re- 
view of  dramatic  chronology,  after  all  his 
statements  conveying  the  assurance  that 
"Philaster"  was  the  original  "type"  of  the 
"romance,"  Professor  Thorndike  says  in  so 
many  words,  which  for  accuracy  we  quote : 
"Some  such  statement  of  the  influence  of 
'  Philaster '  on  '  Cymbeline '  could  be  adopted 
if  we  were  certain  of  our  chronology.  But  the 
evidence  for  the  priority  of  'Philaster'  is 
not  conclusive,  and  its  support  cannot  be 
confidently  relied  upon .  Leaving  aside ,  then , 
the  question  of  exact  date,  and  only  pre- 
mising the  fact  that  both  plays  were  written 
at  about  the  same  time,  we  must  face  the 
questions, — which   is   more   plausible,    that 


n8  Critics 

Shakspere  influenced  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
or  that  they  influenced  him?  Which  on 
its  face  is  more  likely  to  be  the  original, 
'  Cymbeline '  or  '  Philaster  '  ?  " 

If  "Cymbeline"  was  first  written,  then 
"Philaster"  becomes  not  an  original  but  a 
copy,  adaptation,  imitation,  plagiarism,  if 
you  will.  The  similarities  remain  the  same, 
the  argument  is  reversed.  We  have  shown 
that  the  evidence  is  conclusive,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  best  critics,  that  "Cymbeline" 
preceded  "Philaster."  Coleridge,  Ulrici, 
Tieck  and  Knight  think  that  "this  varied- 
woven  romantic  history  had  inspired  the 
poet  in  his  youth"  to  attempt  its  adaptation 
to  the  stage ;  that  having  had  but  a  temporary 
appearance,  Shakspere  long  afterwards,  near 
the  end  of  his  career,  may  have  remodelled 
it,  and  Malone,  Chalmers,  and  Drake  assign 
"Cymbeline"  with  "Macbeth"  to  1605  or 
1606.  Our  argument  might  be  safely  put 
upon  this  point  alone.  Professor  Thorn- 
dike's  is  placed  solely  upon  "  plausibility  " 
and  "  likelihood."     To  support  it,  he  assumes 


vs.  Shakspere  119 

again  the  certainty  of  "the  priority  of 
Philaster  " — which  he  had  just  admitted  to  be 
uncertain — in  order  to  show  "the  nature 
of  Shakspere's  indebtedness,"  and  then 
concludes  from  "  the  nature  of  the  indebted- 
ness," and  from  the  fact  that  "Philaster" 
"  was  followed  immediately  by  five  romances 
of  the  same  style  in  plot  and  characters  " 
"which  mark  Fletcher's  work  for  the  next 
twenty  years,"  that  "these  facts  create  a 
strong  presumption  that  'Philaster'  was 
the  original,"  "a  strong  presumption  that 
'Cymbeline' was  the  copy,"  and  finally  ends 
the  argument  as  it  began,  with  these  flattering 
words:  "We  may,  indeed,  safely  assert  that 
Shakspere  almost  never  invented  dramatic 
types."  And  this  is  the  argument  which 
Professor  Wendell  thinks  "virtually  proves 
that  several  of  their  plays  (Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  romances)  must  have  been  in  exist- 
ence decidedly  before  '  Cymbeline, ' '  The  Tem- 
pest' or  'Winter's  Tale,'  "  "that  the  relation 
commonly  thought  to  have  existed  between 
them  and  Shakspere  is  precisely  reversed." 


120  Critics 

Let  us  answer  both  Teacher  and  Pupil. 
Suppose,  to  follow  the  Thorndike  method, 
that  "Cymbeline"  appeared  before  "Phil- 
aster,"  that  six  romances  by  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  followed  in  rapid  succession,  while 
only  two  by  Shakspere  appeared,  but  differing 
essentially  from  each  other  and  from  "  Phil- 
aster. "  Suppose  that  "Cymbeline"  upon  its 
first  night  "filled  the  audience  with  surprise 
and  delight, "  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
perceiving  "its  dramatic  and  poetic  ex- 
cellence," copied  in  "Philaster"  a  portion 
of  its  plot  and  attempted  to  copy  some 
of  its  characters  and  situations.  Suppose 
their  experiment  with  this  copy  took  the 
crowd  by  storm — Isn't  it  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  they  would  repeat  the  profitable 
attempt  as  many  times  as  the  applause 
warranted?  Isn't  that  just  what  they  did, 
repeating  and  imitating  themselves  over 
and  over,  until  Beaumont  died?  Does  the 
number  of  repetitions  and  imitations  in- 
crease the  "plausibility"  or  "likelihood"  of 
the  theory  that  "  Philaster"  was  the  original 


vs.  Shakspere  121 

of  the  type?  If  Shakspere  found  his  gain 
increasing  by  copying  the  fable,  character, 
style,  and  denouement  of  "Philaster, "  why 
did  he  not  continue  to  copy  in  "  The  Tempest' ' 
and  "  Winter's  Tale, "  and  why  is  it  impossible 
for  Professor  Thorndike  to  deny  originality 
to  either  of  these  plays,  except  by  his  careless 
error  as  to  Miranda's  "proposal"  and  the 
reference  to  Lady  Amelia  gathering  flowers 
at  Oxford  in  1566?  Professor  Thorndike 's 
argument  comes  to  this  and  only  this:  If 
Shakspere  wrote  "Cymbeline"  before  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  wrote  "Philaster,"  then 
Shakspere  was  the  "creator  of  the  heroic  ro- 
mances." If  the  question  of  priority  is  doubt- 
ful, it  is  just  as  impossible  to  prove  the 
"  plausibility  "  or  "  likelihood  "  of  priority  as  it 
is  to  prove  the  date.  There  is  no  proof,  there- 
fore, no  presumption,  strong  or  weak,  that 
"Cymbeline"  was  influenced  by  "  Philaster  " 
or  was  a  "  copy ' '  of  it.  But  there  is  proof  that 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  repeatedly  and  habitu- 
ally imitated  Shakspere,  and  we  cite  it  mostly 
from  Professor  Thorndike 's  essay. 


122  Critics 

In  "The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen"  there  is  a 
"distinct  imitation  of  the  circumstances 
of  Ophelia's  madness  and  death  in  Hamlet." 
In  "The  Woman  Hater,"  assigned  conjec- 
turally  to  1605  or  1606  by  Professor  Thorn- 
dike,  there  are  "  several  burlesque  imitations 
of  Hamlet." 

In  "The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle" 
( 1 607-1 608)  there  are  burlesque  imitations 
of  passages  in  "  Henry  IV."  and  in  "Romeo 
and  Juliet." 

In  "Philaster"  occurs  this  line: 

"  Mark  but  the  King,  how  pale  he  looks  with 
fear," 

— a  distinct  parody  of  the  similar  line  in 
"  Hamlet " ;  but  it  will  be  remarked  that  Pro- 
fessor Thorndike  calls  it  an  "echo,"  not  an 
imitation. 

In  "The  Woman's  Prize,"  improbably  as- 
signed to  1604,  the  whole  play  is  imitated 
from  "The  Taming  of  the  Shrew," — is  in 
fact  an  attempted  sequel  to  it,  and  Pro- 
fessor Thorndike  wanders  from  chronol- 
ogy   to    indulge   a    sneer,   by   the    remark 


vs.  Shakspere  123 

that  "The  Woman's  Prize"  was  "very  well 
liked,"  the  "Taming  of  the  Shrew"  only 
"liked."  Possibly  that  was  because  then, 
as  now,  some  people  preferred  imitations. 

In  "The  Woman's  Prize,"  there  is  also 
a  burlesque  on  "Hamlet"  and  a  parody  on 
"King  Lear."  In  " The  Triumph  of  Death" 
these    lines    occur : — 

"  No,  take  him  dead  drunk  now,  without  re- 
pentance, 
His  lechery  enseamed  upon  him," 

and  Professor  Thorndike  says  "  it  sounds  like 
a  bit  from  an  old  revenge  play."  It  is  a 
distinct  imitation  from  "Hamlet"  where  the 
King  is  seen  at  his  prayers. 

In  the  "  Scornful  Lady  "  there  is  one  certain 
and  one  possible  slur  at  "Hamlet." 

In  "Cupid's  Revenge"  there  is  an  imita- 
tion from  "Antony  and  Cleopatra." 

In  "Philaster  "  Arethusa  imitates  Lear  when 
he  awakens  from  insanity  to  consciousness. 

Upon  the  Wendell-Thorndike  theory,  we 
have  a  few  undisputed  facts  bearing  upon 
the    "plausibility"   of   the   conclusion   that 


1 24  Critics 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher  "influenced"  Shak- 
spere,  the  likelihood  that  "Philaster"  was 
the  original,  "  Cymbeline "  the  "copy." 
Shakspere  at  the  age  of  forty-six,  long  after 
he  had  portrayed  the  real  insanity  of  Lear, 
the  simulated  insanity  of  Hamlet,  the 
confessional  dream  of  Lady  Macbeth;  long 
after  he  had  "filled  the  audience  with 
surprise  and  delight"  by  the  romantic 
realities  of  Hero  and  Portia,  of  Viola  and 
Rosalind;  years  after  he  had  anticipated 
the  heroic  "romance"  in  the  romantic 
adventures  of  Marina;  long  after  he  had 
depicted  the  heroic  triumph  of  Isabella 
over  the  lustful  Angelo — this  man,  Shak- 
spere, condescended  to  imitate  a  youth  of 
twenty-two,  whose  name  was  Beaumont, 
to  steal  from  him  much  of  the  plot,  char- 
acters, action,  and  denouement  of  "  Phil- 
aster  "  and  to  make  the  theft  more  open  and 
unblushing,  presented  "Cymbeline"  upon 
the  same  stage  within  a  year  of  the  original 
"  type, "  and  assigned  the  parts  to  the  same 
actors   who  had  won    remarkable    popular 


vs.  Shakspere  125 

applause  for  the  drama  from  which  he  had 
"cribbed"  his  imitation.  And  this  imita- 
tion was  not  from  friendly  authors,  but  from 
those  of  a  hostile  school,  who  had  during 
their  whole  career  borrowed  from  his  plots, 
parodied  his  phrases,  and  ridiculed  his 
masterpieces  by  slurs  and  burlesques.  We 
respectfully  dissent  from  the  assertion  that 
these  facts  "create  a  strong  presumption 
that  'Philaster'  was  the  original,"  "Cym- 
beline"  the  "copy."  On  the  contrary,  it 
seems  to  us  that  they  are  utterly  inconsistent 
with  any  such  presumption,  and  with  the 
whole  theory  and  teaching  of  Professors 
Wendell  and  Thorndike. 

That  theory,  as  we  have  shown,  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  Marlowe,  or 
Greene,  or  Peele,  or  somebody  else,  wrote 
most  of  "Henry  VI";  the  assumption  that 
Fletcher  helped  Shakspere  write  "Henry 
VIII";  the  assumption  that  Shakspere  as- 
sisted Fletcher  in  the  composition  of  "The 
Two  Noble  Kinsmen";  the  unsupported, 
the   admitted   conjecture  that   "Philaster" 


1 26  Critics 

was  written  before  October  8th,  16 10;  the 
unwarranted  assertion  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  "created  the  romance"  in  spite  of 
the  admission  that  the  date  of  creation 
depends  upon  the  priority  of  "Cymbeline" 
or  "  Philaster, "  which  is  likewise  admitted 
to  be  wholly  uncertain;  the  suppression 
of  the  proof  from  "Measure  for  Measure" 
that,  years  before  "  Philaster,  "  Shakspere, 
within  the  proposed  definition,  had  produced 
a  romantic  tragi-comedy ;  the  guess  as  to  pri- 
ority in  favor  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  in 
spite  of  repeated  imitations  by  them  from  pre- 
vious plays  of  Shakspere.  And  so  the  argu- 
ment in  support  of  the  theory  is  a  pyramid 
of  ifs,  supporting  an  apex  that  vanishes 
into  the  thin  air  of  an  invisible  conclusion. 

To  us,  after  all  this  latest  effort  to  depose 
the  sovereign  of  English  literature  from  the 
throne  where  he  was  worn  the  crown  for 
more  than  three  centuries,  and  seat  there  a 
pretender,  having  no  title,  either  by  divine 
right  or  the  suffrages  of  mankind,  Shakspere 
is  the  sovereign  still,  > 


vs.  Shakspere  127 

He  needed  and  he  sought  no  allies  to  win 
his  realm;  he  imitated  no  fashions  of  other 
courts  to  maintain  his  own;  he  took  good 
care  that  the  records  of  his  universal  con- 
quests should  be  kept,— written  by  his  own 
hand,  and  fortunately  preserved  by  his  friends, 
— secure  from  the  interpolations  and  imita- 
tions of  his  contemporaries  and  successors. 

Much   has    been    written    of    Shakspere 's 

impersonality,    and   we   have   been    taught 

to  think  that  his  dramas  are  utterly  silent 

as   to   his   own   experience.     But   now   and 

then  one  finds  in  them  a  glimpse  of  it,  as 

the    lightning   flash   in    the    darkest    night 

for  an  instant  shows  the  heavens  and  the 

earth.     That   others    attempted   to   imitate 

him  is  clear  enough;  that  he  imitated  others, 

and   least  of   all   Beaumont   and   Fletcher, 

nobody  can   reasonably   believe   who   reads 

his  opinion  of  the  imitator  in  "Julius  Caesar": 

"  A  barren  spirited  fellow;  one  that  feeds 

On  objects,  arts,  and  imitations, 

Which,  out  of  use,  and  stal'd  by  other  men, 

Begin  his  fashion," 


128         Critics  vs.  Shakspere 

Matthew  Arnold's  verdict  has  not  been  re- 
versed. 

"Others  abide  our  question.     Thou  art  free. 
We  ask  and  ask — Thou  smile st  and  art  still, 
Out-topping  knowledge.     For  the  loftiest  hill, 
Who  to  the  stars  uncrowns  his  majesty, 

"Planting  his  stedfast  footsteps  in  the  sea, 
Making  the  heaven  of  heavens  his  dwelling-place, 
Spares  but  the  cloudy  border  of  his  base 
To  the  foil'd  searching  of  mortality  ; 

"And  thou,  who  didst  the  stars  and  sunbeams 
know, 

Self-school'd,  self-scann'd,  self -honour' d,  self- 
secure, 

Didst  tread  on  earth  unguess'd    at. — Better    so! 

"All  pains  the  immortal  spirit  must  endure, 
All  weakness  which  impairs ,  all  griefs  which  bow, 
Find  their  sole  speech  in  that  victorious  brow." 


503 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  677  591     o 


